Russlands invasjon av Ukraina [Ny tråd, les førstepost]

[bojangles]

 

AI sammendrag:

Spoiler

1. Ukrainian Breakthrough in the Kakhovka Region

• The Ukrainian Army made significant advances in the Kakhovka region, reportedly breaking through the first Russian defense lines.
• Visual confirmation from drone footage shows Ukrainian forces penetrating Russian defenses and moving towards the town of Mylove.
• Ukrainian forces used engineering equipment to breach Russian-built "dragon teeth" defenses, indicating a large-scale offensive.
• Initial Ukrainian advances were conducted by infantry, with armored vehicles joining later after pushing Russian forces back.
• There are concerns from Russian military bloggers about this Ukrainian advance, particularly around the western flank of the region.

2. Russian Counterattacks and Disinformation

• The Russian Army has launched counterattacks in the same region, but there is conflicting information regarding their success.
• Russian forces claim to have taken several villages, though there is limited confirmation from neutral sources.
• Russian bloggers and military correspondents have exaggerated their gains, which are mostly in the "gray zone" areas.
• Despite Russian claims of success, Ukrainian forces appear to be holding their ground, especially with recent reinforcements.

3. Russian Defense Failures and Ukrainian Strikes

• Ukrainian forces successfully targeted Russian bridge-building efforts with cluster munitions, destroying Russian reinforcements.
• Ukraine's use of long-range ATACMS missiles is speculated to have caused significant damage to Russian forces attempting to cross a river.
• Footage from drone surveillance confirmed the destruction of Russian engineering equipment and gathered troops in local forests.

4. Russian Efforts in the Kharkiv Region

• Russian forces are pushing in the Kharkiv region, trying to reach the Oskil River, a key defensive line.
• Ukrainian forces continue to hold key settlements like Kupyansk, though Russia is advancing slowly in the gray areas.
• The strategic aim of the Russian attacks is to encircle Ukrainian forces in several regions, but progress is reportedly limited.

5. Belarus and the Northern Front

• Belarus has been moving forces closer to the Ukrainian border, raising concerns of possible involvement in the war.
• However, the likelihood of a Belarusian offensive is considered low, with difficult terrain and strong Ukrainian defenses making an assault unlikely.
• Potential attack points could be in the Chernihiv region or areas closer to Kyiv, though Ukraine is well-prepared for such scenarios.

6. U.S. and U.K. Military Aid to Ukraine

• Ukrainian officials were expecting to receive long-range Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles from the U.K. and France, with potential approval from the U.S.
• The U.S. has not yet granted permission for Ukraine to use ATACMS against targets on Russian territory.
• There is significant international discussion regarding the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine, but the U.S. is cautious about directly provoking Russia.

7. Putin's Reaction and Health

• Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concern over the potential supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine, seeing it as a direct threat.
• Observers noted that Putin appeared physically and mentally strained during a recent public appearance, hinting at his growing anxiety over Russia's military failures.
• Putin's comments were primarily focused on the potential for increased Western involvement in the war, though no specific plans for retaliation were mentioned.

8. Russian Economic Struggles and Sanctions

• Western sanctions are continuing to impact Russia, with Google and other major tech companies cutting services to Russian users and businesses.
• Many IT specialists are leaving Russia due to the difficulty of working under sanctions, further damaging the Russian economy.
• Russia is attempting to pivot its economy towards countries like China and Turkey, but many companies are wary of violating secondary sanctions imposed by the West.

9. Global and U.S. Political Impact

• U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.K. officials visited Kyiv, emphasizing continued Western support for Ukraine.
• Domestically in the U.S., public figures like Taylor Swift have influenced voter registration, with her endorsement of Kamala Harris leading to an increase in voter engagement.
• There are references to political dynamics in the U.S., including interactions between President Joe Biden and Trump supporters, showcasing efforts to unify the nation despite political divides.

10. Russian Attacks on Ukrainian Civilian Infrastructure

• Russia continues to attack civilian ships in the Black Sea, targeting grain shipments bound for Egypt. Although no crew members were injured, the damage to the vessel underscores Russia's ongoing strategy to disrupt Ukrainian exports.

11. Conclusion and Future Outlook

• The situation on the frontlines is fluid, with both sides making gains in different regions.
• Ukrainian forces have successfully countered several Russian offensives and are pushing forward, particularly in the Kakhovka region.
• Long-range missile strikes and the continued influx of Western military aid will likely shape the next phases of the conflict.
• There is ongoing uncertainty about Russia’s long-term strategy, especially as winter approaches and military conditions change.

The update ends with the host encouraging viewers to follow the developments on his Telegram channel for faster and uncensored updates.

 

[bojangles]

Vel, da er det offisielt og det ble akkurat som jeg fryktet. 

 

[bojangles]

 

[torbjornen]

bojangles skrev (12 timer siden):

 

 

wtf???

Hva faen skjer? Hvem har snakket sammen nå når dette er konklusjonen? Hele denne uken har det ligget i kortene at frem mot helgen vil det offentliggjøres at de kunstige begrensningene for bruke av missiler mot russiske militære mål oppheves. 

Også skjer det motsatte? Status quo og Ukraina må fortsatt kjempe med en hånd bundet på ryggen?

Denne avgjørelsen vil komme til å koste mange liv i Ukraina. Både sivilt og militært. Og mannfallet vil fortsette til putin enten har klart å nedkjempe Ukrainske styrker helt eller til vesten faktisk tar en kraftig realitetsorientering og gjør det som må gjøres for at Ukraina kan vinne og få kastet ut russerne. Og inntil det så vil denne avgjørelsen koste liv i Ukraina i stadig større antall hver eneste dag. Og vi vet iran ga russerne påfyll av ballistiske missiler, så fremover vil det bli ekstra blodig i Ukraina. 

Er dette Bidens siste krafttak som sittende president? Virkelig få kjenne på makten han har? Eller er det atomangsten hos Sullivan som vi her ser i full blomst og at dette skyldes at Sullivan har trekt i trådene? Eller er dette bare en gjeng gretne gamle gubber som er i ferd med å miste oversikten over tid og rom? Som uansett hvor hardt vesten, NATO og til sist Ukraina presses av russerne ikke har baller store nok til å gjøre de endringene som må til nå?

Jeg kjenner det nå nesten koker over hos meg. Jeg er skuffet, forbannet og merkelig nok også veldig sjokkert over at dette ble utfallet. En del av meg har vært skeptisk hele den siste uken til om vi ville se noen endringer. Og likevel føles det nå som det gjør. Og jeg sitter på kontoret og drikker nykvernet kaffe og spiser bagels og burde ellers være i kjempehumør fordi det går mot helg. Men ikke idag. Ikke nå etter at Ukraina sviktes ennå en gang. 

Og tenk på hvordan dette blir mottatt i Ukraina. Hvor forrådt må ikke de føle seg nå? Vil folket i Ukraina noen gang kunne glemme sviket mot dem?

Vi får håpe at Ukraina kan bruke denne ørefiken fra Biden til å gå all in på egenproduserte missiler og at de kan klare å få igang produksjon på rekordtid. 

Eg lurer på om problemet her er at Labour er feigare enn toryane var.

McCaul var vel tydeleg på at han hadde fått vite at dei amerikanske restriksjonane ville bli letta eller fjerna?

[bojangles]

[bojangles]

6 hours ago, torbjornen said:

Eg lurer på om problemet her er at Labour er feigare enn toryane var.

McCaul var vel tydeleg på at han hadde fått vite at dei amerikanske restriksjonane ville bli letta eller fjerna?

 

Jeg husker ikke i farten hvem av de det var som bekreftet at restriksjonene ville bli hevet, men det ble sagt, og det er postet i tråden i løpet av den siste uken. 

En får vel nesten håpe at innovative sjeler i Ukraina lager sine egne cruise missiler. I sin enkleste form er det et rør med fjærbelastede vinger, med drivstoff i røret og eksplosiver i stridshodet. Ukraina har mange smarte menn, før krigen var de på vei til å bygge stor kompetanse på kontrollere/invertere for el-kjøretøy. Tipper de hadde europas dyktigste på det området. Så en håndfull av disse hadde helt sikkert klart å gjøre den smart via både gps og bildegjenkjenning og gitt den styring. 

Nå er det helt sikkert mer som skal til for å lage cruise missiler og det er langt utenfor mitt felt. Min erfaring med ting som sier pang stammer fra kinaputter fra svinsesund og nyttårsraketter. Men Ukraina har nok fått mange med kompetanse på alt som sier pang de siste årene. Og de har vist at de er kreative og kan skape mye ut av lite tidligere. 

Og skulle de lykkes med å starte en viss serieproduksjon av disse, stor nok produksjon til at de kunne tatt ut relevante mål langt inne i russland så ville det ble tidenes "in your fucking face" til både Storbritannia, Tyskland og USA. 

Kanskje er det noen pensjonister fra feks Kongsberg våpen el Nammo eller tilsvarende selskaper i andre land som donerer sin tid og kunnskap til Ukraina slik at de kan komme i mål med egne missiler i rekordfart? 

Canada donerte vel ca 7000 missiler av noe slag i 2023 der mesteparten manglet stridshode iirc. Da er det kanskje mulig å strippe de for rakettdrivstoff så har de noe de kan starte med? 

[bojangles]

 

[bojangles]

Sannhetsgehalten kan jeg ikke garantere, men å starte helgen med en god kopp kaffe og et latterbrøl anbefales. 

Dessverre så rakk jeg tenke mer over hva om dette faktisk stemmer mens jeg smurte skiver med brunost og da må jeg si latteren stilnet temmelig kjapt. For i realiteten er det jo der USA har vært helt siden februar 2022. Too little too late fordi frykten for putin har gjort dem handlingslammet. 

Om ikke Polen hadde donert tanks og sagt til hele verden at det ville de gjøre uansett om de ble gitt eksport-tillatelse så hadde kanskje USA aldri donert noe som helst av reell verdi til Ukraina?

Sent igår ble det sagt at USA holdt igjen på tillatelse for bruk av long range ATACMS fordi de ville se resultatet av long range storm shadow. Men Britene sier jo nå at heller ikke storm shadows skal brukes inne i russland. Så hva som er fakta i saken er jo helt umulig å vite. 

Det eneste jeg kan dra ut av dette er at atomangsten gjøre både Tyskland, Storbritannia og USA handlingslammet og ute av stand til å donere det som virkelig kan spare liv og endre krigens gang. 

Endret 14. september av bojangles

[bojangles]

 

 

AI sammendrag:

 

Spoiler

Introduction

The interview begins with the host introducing General Ben Hodges, a retired American general who commanded U.S. Army Europe from 2014 to 2017. He is a vocal commentator on military matters, particularly on the ongoing war in Ukraine. This episode aired on September 12th, 2023, during a period of heightened military and diplomatic activities regarding Ukraine. Hodges is also a signatory of an open letter to the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, urging for the removal of restrictions on using Western-supplied weapons for strikes deep into Russia.

Discussion on Lifting Restrictions for Ukraine’s Strikes into Russia

General Hodges opens by explaining the reasoning behind the letter, expressing frustration with the West’s reluctance to allow Ukraine to fully utilize Western weapons to strike inside Russia. He argues that every "red line" placed by the U.S. and its allies—such as not providing certain weapons to Ukraine—has eventually been crossed. He believes it’s inevitable that Ukraine will be allowed to use longer-range weapons, but criticizes the delays, which he sees as unnecessarily prolonging the conflict.

He points out that President Biden has yet to make a formal decision on long-range missile strikes but acknowledges discussions are ongoing about what kind of permissions to grant. Hodges stresses the need for swift decision-making and expresses optimism due to the presence of forward-leaning diplomats like Antony Blinken.

The Strategic Importance of Targeting Russian Supply Chains

Hodges discusses the potential targets Ukraine could strike if given the green light for deeper strikes into Russian territory, particularly facilities housing Iranian-provided ballistic missiles. He argues that it makes no sense to allow these facilities to operate freely, as the weapons they produce or house are being used to attack Ukrainian civilians. Hodges compares this situation to Israel's approach, which proactively targets Iranian weapons before they can be used against them, and wonders why the West isn’t employing a similar strategy.

Debunking Fears of Russian Nuclear Escalation

One of the central themes of the interview is the West's fear of provoking nuclear retaliation from Russia. Hodges acknowledges the seriousness of nuclear threats but argues that the risk is overstated. He explains that, despite Russia’s large nuclear arsenal, the strategic and political costs of using a nuclear weapon far outweigh any potential gains. Furthermore, he cites pressure from countries like China and India, who are not interested in seeing a nuclear conflict disrupt their access to Russian oil and gas.

Hodges believes that Russia benefits more from Western self-deterrence, which he views as driven by an overblown fear of nuclear escalation. He argues that since this war is not existential for Russia, the chances of a nuclear response are slim, especially given the global consequences it would entail.

Challenges and Politics Behind U.S. Support

When asked what is holding up the decision to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs, Hodges points to President Biden and his administration’s cautious approach, which he attributes to the influence of long-established Russia experts in Washington. He criticizes these experts for being wrong about Russia for years, arguing that they have consistently underestimated the situation, both under the Obama administration and now.

Additionally, Hodges mentions the international pressure on Ukraine to negotiate and even potentially cede Crimea, which he finds misguided. He stresses that Crimea must remain part of Ukraine and voices concern over any peace talks that could legitimize Russia's territorial gains.

Russian Counteroffensive and Ukraine’s Defense

Turning to the battlefield, Hodges addresses the current state of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, particularly in the Kherson region. Western analysts and Ukrainian President Zelensky have indicated that a Russian counteroffensive is underway in an attempt to reclaim land Ukraine had seized. According to Hodges, Ukraine anticipated this and has likely prepared defenses to withstand the pressure. He notes that Russia has gathered a substantial force, but its coherence is questionable given the patchwork nature of the units involved.

Despite the Russian efforts, Hodges remains confident that Ukraine’s strategy to disrupt Russian logistics and maintain their positions will prove effective. He highlights Ukraine’s success in weakening Russian infrastructure, particularly rail lines crucial for transporting supplies and troops.

Oligarch Pressure on Putin

One of the more intriguing parts of the discussion revolves around the internal pressure that Russian oligarchs are starting to place on Putin. Hodges explains that these elites are beginning to question the war's value, especially as their own personal wealth and international mobility are being curtailed. The general hopes that Western countries can exploit this discontent by sending clear messages that the oligarchs will never regain their access to luxury assets abroad—such as homes in London or yachts in the Mediterranean—unless they push Putin to end the war.

Hodges compares this to the Vietnam War, suggesting that just as public support in the U.S. eroded after the 1968 Tet Offensive, the same could happen within Russia if influential elites feel the war is unwinnable or too costly.

Challenges in German and Western European Support

The interview moves to discuss the role of Germany in the conflict. While Hodges believes Germany remains committed to supporting Ukraine, he acknowledges the political fragility of the current coalition government led by Olaf Scholz. Hodges underscores the internal divisions within Germany, particularly regarding how to balance support for Ukraine with domestic pressures around immigration and economic concerns. He praises the Greens for their strong pro-Ukraine stance but admits that there are still hurdles in Germany’s full alignment with the war effort.

Reconstituting Ukraine’s Defense Capabilities

The discussion transitions into Ukraine’s defense needs, especially in light of the recent Ukraine Contact Group meeting at Ramstein Air Base. One of the meeting's conclusions was the importance of rebuilding Ukraine’s defense industry and ensuring its long-term ability to produce weapons and equipment. Hodges is optimistic about Ukraine's ability to achieve this, pointing to its legacy as a key part of the Soviet Union's defense industry.

He believes that the creation of Ukraine’s own defense industrial base will be vital not just for immediate wartime needs but for long-term security. Additionally, he emphasizes the need for Ukraine to build a future force capable of continuing the fight, even as it remains engaged in an active war. This will require significant resources, training, and a change in societal attitudes toward military service, which still carry the baggage of Soviet-era perceptions.

American Perceptions of the War

Hodges shares his observations from a recent visit to the U.S., where he noticed both support for Ukraine and growing apathy. While many Americans display Ukrainian flags in solidarity, there is also frustration over the financial costs of supporting the war. Hodges recounts how explaining the broader implications of the conflict—such as its impact on U.S. economic prosperity and global stability—helps sway public opinion. He criticizes the Biden administration for not doing enough to educate the American public on why supporting Ukraine is in their national interest.

9/11 and the Importance of Unity

The interview concludes with a reflection on the anniversary of 9/11 and the subsequent NATO response, the only time Article 5 (collective defense) has been invoked. Hodges highlights the unity that followed the attacks, both within the U.S. and among its allies. He underscores the importance of this kind of unity in facing global threats, including the ongoing war in Ukraine.

---

Conclusion

In this detailed interview, General Ben Hodges provides a comprehensive analysis of the situation in Ukraine, focusing on the need for greater Western military support, the internal pressures facing Putin, and the strategic importance of Ukraine’s defense. He calls for a more proactive and unified Western approach, while also acknowledging the political and logistical challenges involved. Hodges’ insights reflect his deep understanding of both military strategy and the broader geopolitical implications of the war

 

[bojangles]

 

AI sammendrag:

Spoiler

Introduction

The video focuses on recent developments in the Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russian forces in the Kursk region. It highlights a critical turning point in the war, with Ukrainian forces achieving significant strategic victories that have disrupted Russian operations and forced the redeployment of Russian reserves.

Ukrainian Strategic Success in Kursk

The Ukrainian offensive in the Kursk region has escalated to the point where Russian forces were compelled to redirect their most critical reserves from other regions, notably from Pokrovsk. By pressuring the Russians in the Kursk region, the Ukrainians succeeded in derailing a major Russian offensive, marking a strategic victory for Ukraine.

Ukrainian forces significantly outnumbered Russian defenders around the town of Koronino. As a result, Russian forces faced the threat of encirclement, particularly with Ukrainian advances from multiple directions. This created immense pressure on Russian positions, leading the Russian command to gradually redeploy troops to strengthen their defenses in the Kursk area, even though these forces were originally meant to support operations in Pokrovsk.

Russian Troop Redeployment

The primary objective of the Ukrainian offensive was to divert Russian troops from their offensive in Pokrovsk, which the Russians had heavily invested in. Reluctant to draw forces from this key area, Russian commanders tried to pull troops from various parts of the front. However, the deteriorating situation around Koronino and the looming risk of encirclement forced the Russian command to redeploy essential forces from Pokrovsk to Kursk.

Reports indicate that Russian reinforcements to Kursk included the 15th Motorized Rifle Brigade and the 1st Sloviansk Brigade. Once bolstered, the Russian forces began launching counterattacks around Koronino, specifically aimed at reducing Ukrainian pressure on the town’s southern flank.

Russian Counterattacks

Russian counterattacks commenced with a force of eight armored vehicles and approximately 70 soldiers. Ukrainian geolocated footage showed the Russian assault advancing from Koronino towards the village of Sagos, where they faced fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces. The Russian forces, using BMPs to provide cover fire, engaged in intense combat with Ukrainian defenders. However, sustaining such counterattacks requires a substantial increase in Russian troops and resources.

Russian Troop Movements and Ukrainian Response

Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Alexander Syrskyi stated that Russia had redeployed up to 30,000 troops to the Kursk region. This number is expected to rise as Russia plans further counteroffensive actions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that there are up to 60,000 Russian troops across Ukraine's northeastern border, from Bryansk to Kharkiv, including those in Kursk.

By forcing Russia to deploy such significant forces to Kursk, Ukraine has shifted the war's trajectory. This diversion of reserves slowed down Russian operations in Pokrovsk, which suffered from a lack of reinforcements to compensate for heavy losses.

Ukrainian Strikes on Russian Logistics

In addition to pressuring Russian forces in the field, Ukraine targeted key Russian logistics hubs to further destabilize their operations. Ukrainian military intelligence identified and struck an ammunition depot in Soldatske, Voronezh region, which housed significant Russian military equipment, including North Korean-supplied ballistic missiles. The strike resulted in massive explosions and fires, disrupting Russian supply chains.

In Belgorod, Ukraine also successfully targeted several Russian fuel depots in the cities of Nikolskoye and Volokonovsky. These strikes further complicated Russia’s ability to sustain its counteroffensive in Kursk by disrupting fuel supplies essential for operations.

Strategic Impact of the Ukrainian Offensive

The video emphasizes that the forced redeployment of Russian reserves from Pokrovsk to Kursk illustrates the effectiveness of Ukraine’s strategic planning. Ukraine has successfully exploited Russian vulnerabilities, significantly altering the dynamics of the war. The Ukrainian forces managed to destabilize Russia’s battlefield initiative in just six weeks—an outcome that Russian offensives typically take six to nine months to achieve.

Conclusion

The video concludes by highlighting the effectiveness of Ukraine’s military operations, which have put pressure on Russian forces, altered the strategic landscape, and undermined Russia's broader offensive capabilities. The presenter ends with a call to action, encouraging viewers to support Ukraine and the channel’s work by purchasing products from the online store.

 

[DrAlban3000]

Cervinus skrev (13 timer siden):

Vesten adlyder, ja. Denne svakheten fra vesten motiverer nok bare mafiabossen til å kjøre på enda hardere, noe som vil føre til mer eskalering, flere døde og mer lemlestelse i Ukraina. 

Denne svakheten gjør at Russland får overleve. En konfrontasjon med atomvåpen ødelegger Russland og alt i det. En konvensjonell krigføring ødelegger Russland og alt i det.

Det er det NATO prøver å unngå tror jeg, å unngå å måtte utslette Russland fordi de enten utløser artikkel 5 eller bruker atomvåpen.

[oddeh]

 

[VifteKopp]

DrAlban3000 skrev (3 timer siden):

Denne svakheten gjør at Russland får overleve. En konfrontasjon med atomvåpen ødelegger Russland og alt i det. En konvensjonell krigføring ødelegger Russland og alt i det.

Det er det NATO prøver å unngå tror jeg, å unngå å måtte utslette Russland fordi de enten utløser artikkel 5 eller bruker atomvåpen.

Putin kommer aldri til å bruke atomvåpen, med mindre ukrainske styrker banker på bunkerdøren hans. Og da er Putin mest sannsynlig felt i et kupp uansett. Det vet både USA og resten av Vesten.

[JK22]

Dette nærmest garantere at russiske soldater hadde blitt rammet. Meget merkelig at de ikke ville flytte seg ut av vegen for den regnende termitten. Men det er jo hva som er det russiske folkets natur; de er fatalister som tror det ikke finnes lykke i livet. 

[JK22]

Den pansrede pickup som egentlig er snakk om en Ford F-550, har blitt meget populært som en flerrolles panserbil i Ukraina med voksende interesse for dette annetsteds, så meget at Roshel i Canada anså den som en fremtidig vinner - og dermed har satt opp produksjonen til 9 stykker per døgn. Det er hundretusener av ledige F-550 chassiser, ikke minst fordi Ford tilbyr både ferdige og uferdige F-550 kjøretøyer for både kunde og karosseriprodusent. Roshel bare produsere panserkarosserier. Opptil 1,500 Senator-panserbiler har blitt levert til Ukraina, årsproduksjonen kan ha blitt forstørret til cirka 3,000 per år. Produksjonen var mulig fordi det er langt billigere med et effektiv og "innlands" forsyningsnettverk med komponenter fra så få land som mulig, ved å basere seg på et allerede eksisterende allsidig kjøretøy. 

Dessverre er denne en av få lysglimtene omkring vestlig våpen- og utstyrsproduksjon i dag. 

[oddeh]

[Mbappe09]

Scholz bekrefter igjen at Tyskland ikke skal levere Taurus. Idioten er på samme side som Merkel og Schröder. 

 

Endret 14. september av Mbappe09

[bojangles]

2 hours ago, Mbappe09 said:

Scholz bekrefter igjen at Tyskland ikke skal levere Taurus. Idioten er på samme side som Merkel og Schröder.

 

Litt av problemet i dette føler jeg er at vi vet ikke hvem det er som er den reelle bremseklossen, er det feks Biden/Sullivan, er det Scholz eller er det begge også legger begge press på Storbritannia? Det var jo bred støtte i Tyskland for å donere Taurus, men Scholz blokkerte. Skjedde det ene og alene pga Scholz atomangst eller la USA press på Tyskland? 

Det er kanskje ikke av allverdens viktighet annet en at en da vet hvem som bryter ned NATO fra innsiden med viten og vilje. For effekten av disse restriksjonene er der jo uansett hvem som blokkerte, om det var en, to eller de tre i fellesskap. 

Det må vel ryke flere hundre sivile liv i Ukraina i neste russiske bombeangrep med ballistiske missiler før det kanskje skjer noe? 

Historisk sett evner jo ikke vi mennesker å leve i fred og fordragelighet i en nogenlunde fornuftig sameksistens over tid. Gode tider med fred og økt levestandard har alltid endt i kriger. Og om vestlige ledere ikke skjerper seg kraftig relativt kjapt så har de selv sørget for at den såkalte "new world order" vil bli forsøkt anlagt - selv om det vil koste millioner av liv. Og da kan man tenke tilbake til 2022-2204 og virkelig kjenne på alle feilene vesten begikk. 

[bojangles]

 

[Enceladus]

Ville dette vært nyttig for Ukraina?