1 ... 377 378 379 380 381 ... 427
NOHOME
NOHOME MegaDork
12/22/23 11:36 p.m.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to aircooled :

I'm basically on the same page as you, but if Russia outlasts our willingness to spend money on Ukraine, it could be yet another fiasco. And I just have so little faith in our government's ability to consistently do the right thing.  

Ross Perot and Putin both know the same thing when it comes to winning. 

Most people give up just when they're about to achieve success. They quit on the one yard line. They give up at the last minute of the game one foot from a winning touchdown.

Ross Perot

eastsideTim
eastsideTim UltimaDork
12/23/23 7:40 a.m.
NOHOME 

Most people give up just when they're about to achieve success. They quit on the one yard line. They give up at the last minute of the game one foot from a winning touchdown.

Ross Perot

That statement seems like a combination of survivorship bias and sunk cost fallacy to me.

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
12/23/23 8:34 a.m.
Opti said:

First it's hard for me not to consider the USA a global empire when you consider a couple things. We have military bases in about half of ALL other countries, we spend more on our military, by a massive margin, than anybody else (in fact the margin alone is so big it's about double the next largest spender, who is 4x the next one. For perspective, of ALL the military spending worldwide for ALL 195 countries and ~7 billion people, great than one of every 3 dollars is spent by the US and our 335M people) , we control/protect global sea trade with our military might, and we force the rest of the world to trade oil in our currency under threat of military or economic might, then use that to prop up our currency.

The raw expenditures are not especially meaningful. As of last year, the US spent 3.5% of GDP on defense; by comparison, Russia spent 4.1%. Protection of sea trade is simply in the national interest; 70% of US trade by volume, and 40% by value, is maritime. Similarly, maintaining as much influence as possible over the sale and trade of a vital natural resource helps to secure domestic economic stability.

I don't care that Imperial and Empire have become pejoratives, because if you are capable of taking a critical look at what's going on, its clear that as time passes history will consider the USA an empire, just like all the ones it succeeded. I think i conveyed a relatively simple concept between the opposing forces in this country regardless of whether people think it's mean to describe our actions accurately.

It's a rather semantic argument, and not an especially interesting one. While one can argue that the US currently has some characteristics consistent with the definition of "empire", at the same time there are others that do not fit well. Those who prefer the label tend to be critical of US policy.

I know you didn't endorse it, just stated how it is, but more people should be upset with the accurate line about "decision makers working under different assumptions and criteria than the average American." It's literally antithetical to first principles of this country.

Is it? Perhaps to Jefferson and his supporters, but I don't know that Madison or Hamilton would have seen it that way. Frankly, the thought of decision-makers who think like the average American is terrifying.

Public appetite for the cost of the US Empire is fading, even though most people have no idea what it actually costs or benefits them, this is why support for Ukraine is fading.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. People don't know what "empire" costs them, or what benefits they derive from it, but they're tired of paying that (unknown) cost nonetheless? If this is, in fact, representative of a widely held view among the American public, please see my comment above on the value of such opinions in determining policy.

Kreb (Forum Supporter)
Kreb (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
12/23/23 12:51 p.m.
eastsideTim said:
NOHOME 

Most people give up just when they're about to achieve success. They quit on the one yard line. They give up at the last minute of the game one foot from a winning touchdown.

Ross Perot

That statement seems like a combination of survivorship bias and sunk cost fallacy to me.

I might hang that one in my office.

 

Opti
Opti UltraDork
12/23/23 3:33 p.m.
02Pilot said: The raw expenditures are not especially meaningful. As of last year, the US spent 3.5% of GDP on defense; by comparison, Russia spent 4.1%. Protection of sea trade is simply in the national interest; 70% of US trade by volume, and 40% by value, is maritime. Similarly, maintaining as much influence as possible over the sale and trade of a vital natural resource helps to secure domestic economic stability

Looking at it is as a percentage of GDP is just framing and obscures the actual information. Russia is an emerging economy so its GDP is lower, and its currently in an active war so its military spending will be higher. For perspective Russias military spending was like 75B in 22 and the US approved 113B in Ukriane aide in the same year. In just aide to one country we spent more than Russia did on its entire military. Over a third of every military dollar spent in THE WHOLE WORLD is the US, we are not a third of world GDP and we dont have anywhere close to a third of the people. Of course sea trade is in the national interest, it could be argued many imperialistic policies are in the national interest, being in the national interest does not mean exerting control over the rest of the world through military and economic might is not imperialistic by nature.

It's a rather semantic argument, and not an especially interesting one. While one can argue that the US currently has some characteristics consistent with the definition of "empire", at the same time there are others that do not fit well. Those who prefer the label tend to be critical of US policy.

I am critical of us policy, but that wasnt the point. The point of using empire was to quickly convey one of the prevailing political thoughts in the US, "worlds police" "spreading democracy" "stopping the spread of authoritarianism" etc etc etc, vs the other side of "worry  about America first." If it will make you feel better I will also use words that have recently become pejoratives to describe that side also. "Nationalist" or "Isolationist"

Is it? Perhaps to Jefferson and his supporters, but I don't know that Madison or Hamilton would have seen it that way. Frankly, the thought of decision-makers who think like the average American is terrifying.

Yes it is. I have read the Federalist Papers. In the one you linked, Madison mainly focuses on how best to keep one majority faction from infringing on the rights of a minority faction. Which is illustrated by the opening line "AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." To use that as evidence that decisions made in a representative government not need represent the governed is a huge leap (we are actually at this point in a few ways), if thats what you were saying. I wasnt advocating for the "impulsive" as Madison would say. Since we brought up Madison we should visit his positions on how wars should be paid for or neutrality in the Old World, which illustrate quite well many Americans opposition to funding this war.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. People don't know what "empire" costs them, or what benefits they derive from it, but they're tired of paying that (unknown) cost nonetheless? If this is, in fact, representative of a widely held view among the American public, please see my comment above on the value of such opinions in determining policy.

Yes im saying people dont fully understand the costs or benefits of the US Empire, they only focus on a sliver of the entire picture. One of the prevailing arguments against Ukraine is "we should be spending this money in America." What people dont realize is one of the ways the US props up the dollars value is by sending it all over the world and having the largest possible sphere of influence, and if the US were to withdraw into isolationism it would have an impact on the US Dollar.

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
12/26/23 9:08 a.m.

In reply to Opti :

I don't know that there's a lot more to be gained in this line of discussion. I think it's fair to say we have differing views on definitions and desirability of some US policy choices.

I will admit that I would have to go back and review Madison's other writings before I'd feel qualified to comment there. His time is not one in which I specialize, and it's been a long time since I read into it deeply.

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
12/26/23 9:20 a.m.

Some news. First off, Ukraine hit a docked Ropucha-class reportedly laden with Iranian drones, which unsurprisingly went up in a massive fireball and left a smoldering pile of wreckage after burning to the waterline. It's a bigger loss that it might seem, as the Ropuchas have been logistical workhorses throughout this conflict.

Second, the NY Times reported (alternate link provided, NYT site paywalled) a few days ago that Russia has been quietly sending out feelers regarding a cease-fire. The US, in turn, pushed Zelensky to signal willingness to participate, but Ukraine refuses to consider any terms that allow Russia to retain territory, and of course Russia isn't willing to give up what it's got, so this went nowhere. What it does show is that a settlement to end fighting is possible (though not without significant hurdles to overcome), and that currently the party that wants to fight on is Ukraine. In part, Western frustration with this unwillingness to bend on their terms may have contributed to the ongoing debate over continuing aid. After pouring huge amounts of material and money into Ukraine, some Western leaders are likely feeling that the only way to push Ukraine to accept some sort of settlement to end the fighting (which is, after all, what many in the West want first and foremost) is to impede their ability to regain ground, thus forcing them to choose between losing something now versus potentially losing everything later.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/26/23 2:25 p.m.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Still very sort of mixed messaging being developed, but the fact that there is any messaging is rather significant (which could be considered the very early starting points for negotiations I suspect)

Putin wants negotiations, but not giving up the seized territories of Ukraine - The New York Times

The belligerent rhetoric of the Russian dictator on TV differs from what is heard behind the scenes. Russian officials say Putin is ready for a ceasefire and has been hinting at it through various diplomatic channels since September. At the same time, the Russian President wants to leave his army in those positions in Ukraine where it is now.

-----

European Union (EU) Foreign Affairs High Representative Josep Borrell stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not interested in a limited territorial victory in Ukraine and will continue the war “until the final victory.”[1] Borrell reported on December 24 that Putin would not be satisfied with capturing a “piece” of Ukraine and allowing the rest of Ukraine to join the EU.[2] Borrell added that Putin will not “give up the war” and called on the West to prepare for a “conflict of high intensity for a long time.”[3] Borrell’s statements are consistent with ISW’s assessment that Russia is not interested in a ceasefire or good-faith negotiations with Ukraine but retains its maximalist goals of a full Russian victory in Ukraine.[4]

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/26/23 2:32 p.m.

The Russians apparently are "finding the range" of the Patriot system the Ukrainians put somewhere near Kherson...

....they lost another SU-34, and apparently an SU-30 (34 is more of an attack plane, the 30 more of multi-role).

As noted above, the Ukrainians did another significant strike in the Crimea area and managed to hit another one of the landing ships.  I think it will be easily repairable...

... uhm.... maybe not... Apparently they found parts of it's hull IN the town!  Now THAT'S blowed up!  Kind of looks like the Ukrainians shot a bunch to overwhelm the air defense, and a lot more than expected got through (likely at least a few Storm Shadows involved).  Possibly helped along by it's cargo exploding (?). If you can see it well, there is very little of it sticking above the water now (the rest blown away or sunk).

A screen shot of a video of one of the hits, which was a VERY significant explosion:

and a bit of aftermath (appears to be a bit closer, but same angle, to give you an idea of the size of the explosion above):

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/26/23 2:34 p.m.

The Russians also apparently hit a train in the train station in Kherson.  No news on causulties, but I would expect a good number of civilians.

I think I noted this before, how Russia is being supplied through 3rd party countries.  Here is an example, from America:

Tens of thousands of sights from American companies are being imported to Russia “for installation on hunting weapons.” Then the sights hit the front

The Russian military actively demonstrates on YouTube the use of sniper scopes from Western manufacturers. In total, 16 billion rubles worth of sights were imported into Russia in 2022–2023, “Important Stories” found out.

Sights (mostly from American companies) are imported into Russia through parallel imports - they circumvent sanctions with the help of intermediaries in China, Turkey and Kazakhstan.

The largest importers of sights are online hunting stores “Pointer” and “Navigator”. Both stores sold goods to rifle manufacturers and weapons companies, some of which are associated with military structures, such as PMC Wagner.

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
12/26/23 3:31 p.m.

In reply to aircooled :

What's said in public is largely irrelevant - it's all designed to influence some polity, but is not necessarily reflective of actual government policy intent. If the Russians are sniffing around for a cease-fire, or even talks, they're going to do it quietly, if for no other reason than to maintain the public hardline to keep a clamp on domestic dissent.

The Russians would be happy to take all they can get, and they feel (correctly) like the West is liable to give them more than their minimum terms, especially if things drag on. But I also think they would settle for their minimums, and if they were allowed to hold the territory they currently have (more or less), they would accept a tough deal that neutralized but well-armed Ukraine, allowed it significant independence to economically associate with the West, and established some sort of demilitarized zone. This allows Putin to claim victory (key for his domestic position) based on territorial gain and halting NATO expansion, while ending the conflict and creating a sustainable future for Ukraine.

In peace negotiations, nobody gets everything they want - Russia and many in the West seem to understand that; Ukraine's leadership seems to be lagging behind in their acceptance of this.

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
12/26/23 10:01 p.m.

A couple of articles illustrating some of the domestic pressures Putin is contending with:

Russia's Military Wives and Mothers Protest Against Putin

Russia's War in Ukraine Has Drained It of Labor

 

stroker
stroker PowerDork
12/27/23 11:10 a.m.
02Pilot said:

A couple of articles illustrating some of the domestic pressures Putin is contending with:

Russia's Military Wives and Mothers Protest Against Putin

Russia's War in Ukraine Has Drained It of Labor

 

That second link raises an interesting question to me.  What finished product could Russia produce and be competitive in the world market?  The only product I know of they make at a "world class" level is vacuum tubes...

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/27/23 11:46 a.m.

In reply to stroker :

Oil and gas.  The world really likes that, and they have a lot.  A good amount more potentially if they keep what they took from Ukraine.  I am not sure that counts as the finished product you are referring to, but parts of the Middle East have gotten quite wealthy with it.

That may be one reason they don't produce a lot of other world useful stuff (much like the Middle East).  They of course have a well developed defense industry, but I suspect the market for those products have faded a bit(!)

They have a decent space industry, but it's obviously not to the level of something like SpaceX.  There is a historically rather popular rocket engine (used in a US launch vehicle even), but.... that is/was produced in Ukraine!

stroker
stroker PowerDork
12/27/23 12:08 p.m.

In reply to aircooled :

You're correct, I would regard oil and gas as raw good and not a finished commodity.  Short version is that I'm doing a reality check on myself--I can't think of anything the Russians manufacture as a finished good that's even remotely "world class" with the exception of the vacuum tubes I referenced.  Their opportunities for economic growth are pretty frikkin' slim, as far as I can tell.  

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/27/23 1:02 p.m.

Yeah, they seem to be more firmly in the commodities area.  Not a bad area to be in, but also not an area that will push your technology generally.  They even recently picked up a good amount of farm (grain) land.  A fair amount of it of course is currently filled with trenches and land mines (and a percentage of people who really hate them).

GIRTHQUAKE
GIRTHQUAKE UltraDork
12/27/23 2:03 p.m.
aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/27/23 2:21 p.m.

Some updates, including on the train station attack, which may not have been as bad as it potentially could have been (?) and an effect of the downing of the SU-34's:

--------

Localized Russian offensive operations are still placing pressure on Ukrainian forces in many places along the front in eastern Ukraine, however, and can result in gradual tactical Russian advances. 

Ukrainian forces conducted a successful missile strike that destroyed a Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) vessel and potentially damaged port infrastructure in occupied Feodosia, Crimea on December 26. 

.... Russian milblogger claimed that units of the 31st Air Defense Division, which are operating S-400 air defense systems in Feodosia, failed to identify two Ukrainian cruise missiles.[21] United Kingdom Defense Secretary Grant Schapps stated that Ukrainian forces have destroyed 20 percent of the BSF over the past four months.[22] ISW continues to assess that Ukrainian strikes on BSF assets have forced the Russian military to move BSF assets to the eastern part of the Black Sea on an enduring basis.[23]

Russian forces struck a train station in Kherson City where civilians were waiting for evacuation on December 26.[24] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated in his nightly address on December 26 that Russian forces struck a railway station in Kherson City, and Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko clarified that Russian forces began shelling the railway station as 140 civilians were awaiting departure onboard an evacuation train.[25] Ukrainian media posted footage depicting the destruction in the aftermath of the strike and reported that the shelling killed at least one and wounded four.[26]

Russian forces have reportedly decreased the tempo of their operations on east (left) bank Kherson Oblast, likely in connection with decreasing Russian aviation activity after Ukrainian forces recently shot down several Russian aircraft.

RX8driver
RX8driver Reader
12/28/23 10:23 a.m.

In reply to stroker :

While more of a commodity than a finished product, I gather they lost out on a lot of lumber/plywood sales into Europe. I know because the mill I work at is filling in for some of the lost supply.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
12/29/23 8:38 p.m.

Some information and analysis of the recent Russian missile wave attack.  Supposedly used 5 Kinzhal hypersonic missiles (I am guessing targeted at air fields or suspected ammo storage areas).

------

Russian forces conducted the largest series of missile and drone strikes against Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion on the morning of December 29. Ukrainian military sources reported that Russian forces launched 36 Shahed-136/131 drones and over 120 missiles of various sizes at industrial and military facilities and critical infrastructure in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, and Odesa cities and Sumy, Cherkasy, and Mykolaiv oblasts.[1] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces launched a total of 160 projectiles at Ukraine and that Ukrainian forces downed 27 Shaheds and 88 Kh-101, Kh-555, and Kh-55 missiles.[2] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi reported that Russian forces first launched the 36 Shahed drones from the northern, southeastern, and western directions in the early hours of December 29.[3] Zaluzhnyi reported that Russian strategic aircraft and bombers later launched at least 90 Kh-101, Kh-555, and Kh-55 cruise missiles and eight Kh-22 and Kh-32 missiles.[4] Russian forces also struck Kharkiv City with modified S-300 air defense missiles and launched a total of 14 S-300, S-400, and Iskander-M ballistic missiles from occupied Crimea and Russia.[5] Zaluzhnyi reported that Russian forces also launched five Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched ballistic missiles, four Kh-31P anti-radar missiles, and one Kh-59 cruise missile at unspecified targets in Ukraine.[6] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russian forces struck civilian infrastructure such as a maternity hospital, educational institutions, a shopping center, a commercial warehouse, and residential buildings in cities throughout Ukraine.[7]

 

The strike package that Russian forces launched on December 29 appears to be a culmination of several months of Russian experimentation with various drone and missile combinations and efforts to test Ukrainian air defenses. Over the past several months, Russian forces have conducted a series of missile and drone strikes of varying sizes, using various combinations of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.[8] In most of the more recent strikes, Russian forces notably used either exclusively Shahed-136/131 type drones or a majority of Shahed drones accompanied by a smaller number of missiles.[9] In contrast, the December 29 strike package included 36 Shahed drones and 120 missiles of various sizes.[10] Ukrainian military officials, including Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Colonel Yuriy Ihnat, have long noted that Russian forces frequently use Shahed-type drones to probe Ukrainian air defense and determine what strike routes most effectively circumvent Ukrainian air defense clusters.[11] Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi also notably assessed on August 28 that Russian forces were likely employing strike packages comprised of more drones than missiles in order to determine flight paths that bypass Ukrainian air defenses and allow other projectiles to more reliably reach their intended targets.[12] ISW assessed on October 21 that Russian forces were likely diversifying the mix of missiles, glide bombs, and drones used in strike packages in order to determine weaknesses in Ukrainian air defense coverage to optimize a strike package such as the one that Russian forces launched on December 29.[13] Russia was likely deliberately stockpiling missiles of various sizes through the fall and early winter of 2023 in order to build a more diverse strike package and apply lessons learned over the course of various recent reconnaissance and probing missions—namely using Shahed drones to bypass Ukrainian air defenses while utilizing missiles to inflict maximal damage on intended targets.[14] Ukrainian forces notably did not intercept any of the Kh-22/Kh-32 missiles, ballistic missiles (S-300s and Iskander-Ms), Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched ballistic missiles (Kh-47s), Kh-31P anti-radar missiles, or Kh-59 cruise missiles that Russian forces launched on December 29, which suggests that Russian forces have been able to successfully apply some lessons learned about effective strike package combinations and that the Shaheds that preceded the missiles may have distracted Ukrainian air defenses or otherwise enabled the strike.[15]

Russia will continue to conduct strikes against Ukraine at scale in an effort to degrade Ukrainian morale and Ukraine’s ability to sustain its war effort against Russia. 

Ukraine has pursued a concerted effort to expand its defense industrial base (DIB) in the past year, and the reported Russian strikes against industrial facilities likely mean to prevent Ukraine from developing key capacities to sustain operations for a longer war effort.[21] Ukraine has also sought Western partnerships for joint production in Ukraine, and Russian strikes on industrial facilities likely aim to increase risks for Western partners and companies above their current risk tolerance for operating in Ukraine.[22]

Current Russian missile and drone reserves and production rates likely do not allow Russian forces to conduct regular large-scale missile strikes, but likely do allow for more consistent drone strikes, which can explain the recent pattern of Russian strike packages. 

The Kremlin's efforts to sufficiently mobilize Russia's defense industrial base (DIB) in support of its wartime objectives, including large-scale strike series, may been more successful than Western officials previously assessed due in part to Russia’s ability to procure military equipment from its partners and the redistribution of Russia’s resources for military

CrustyRedXpress
CrustyRedXpress GRM+ Memberand Dork
12/30/23 8:28 a.m.
02Pilot said:

In reply to aircooled :

What's said in public is largely irrelevant [...] If the Russians are sniffing around for a cease-fire, or even talks, they're going to do it quietly, if for no other reason than to maintain the public hardline to keep a clamp on domestic dissent.

[...]

In peace negotiations, nobody gets everything they want [...]Ukraine's leadership seems to be lagging behind in their acceptance of this.

You've referenced this before and I've never quite followed. What is the downside for Ukraine laying out a public maximalist position-i.e. that they want 100% of their territory returned, entrance to the EU, and to keep the door open for NATO expansion? 

If they saw a need to lower those goals and begin for settlement talks I assume they would do so as you said the Russians would-in private. 

==========================

While we are on the topic of peace negotiations, what sort of settlement do you think would survive? Russia has repeatedly broken agreements to acquire gas/oil/warm water ports so why would they not do so again, particularly if Putin is allowed to spin this as a victory? Similarly, if Ukraine understands that any agreement will eventually be broken by the Russians, why would they take any agreement seriously?

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
12/30/23 9:10 a.m.

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

Public statements about maximalist aims are fine, but mostly meaningless; any serious discussion will regard those as unobtainable from day one. I'm talking more about what's happening behind the scenes - Ukraine's leadership has repeatedly expressed its maximalist objectives to Western leadership as if they really won't back down from them. The US and others have been exasperated by this intransigence, and it's started to filter out into the media. That's the problem: if the Ukrainians were more reasonable in private, there would be no issue with them maintaining their public posture, and the US wouldn't contradict them; but now fault lines start to appear, which only plays to Russia's hand.

As for the durability of a settlement, as I've said repeatedly, that's contingent on both writing it carefully and establishing the means for Ukraine to enforce it. I would argue that the longer Ukraine clings to the fantasy for regaining all their territory, the harder it becomes for them to maintain a credible defensive posture post-settlement due to manpower and equipment issues that will likely endure for at least a decade after the fighting stops.

Noddaz
Noddaz GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/1/24 12:28 p.m.

With a bit of morbid curiosity, I wandered over to Russia Today to see news from the other side.

Moscow slams Ukraine’s ‘terrorist brutes’ over New Year attack

Kiev’s shelling of Donetsk at midnight on Monday killed four people, with 13 injured, according to local officials

***

Suicide mission: As 2023 draws to a close, the Ukrainian army’s last ‘counteroffensive’ advance has stalled

***

Zelensky personally ordered missile attack on civilians – RT source

***

And this just in!  From Dmitry Medvedev

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is “scum” who would love to see his own civilian population killed, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has claimed. The official, who currently serves as deputy chairman of the Security Council, was commenting on a deadly strike on Belgorod, insisting that Moscow’s forces only hit military targets, in contrast to Kiev’s army.

***

This does not mean I sympathize with the Russians.  I don't.  I was just curious about how the Russians are spinning today's stories.

 

VikkiDp
VikkiDp Reader
1/1/24 3:31 p.m.

In reply to Noddaz :

With a bit of morbid curiosity, I wandered over to Russia Today to see news from the other side.

mmm... sometimes it can be interesting wink

especially when you have the opportunity to read the news from both sides in the original and you also grew up in the USSR, so you know how propaganda works. What's happening in russia is a twisted version of it.

Spend billions of dollars to destroy the neighboring country and keep your own people in hypothetical fear of Nato instead of improving the lives of your own citizens and improving your own country - then you staying on "the throne" because you are loved, not because you keep everyone in fear.

I can't find an answer to that question.

I can't understand the sense of war in a civilized(i still hope it is) world. 

People don't know how to negotiate? Or there are no economic ways to solve these problems? I think there are.

That's another question i'm looking for an answer to...

Hi everyone!!! heart

VikkiDp
VikkiDp Reader
1/1/24 3:55 p.m.

In reply to Noddaz :

Kiev’s shelling of Donetsk at midnight on Monday killed four people, with 13 injured, according to local officials

in this place the military leadership and war correspondents were celebrating New Year's Eve.

 From Dmitry Medvedev

it's a separate kind of surprise - what and how he posts on his social media accounts.... ummm... he's a public official.

 

 

 

1 ... 377 378 379 380 381 ... 427

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
b5PAsDw2zud7SU31NR5Sc2tQw2Axw6pO3uaffHXfcO8IRZIrGxgA1hTxFvCLNnXk