Supposedly, an RS-26 was launched from Astrakhan and targeted at infrastructure in Dnipro.
Bluff has been called. They’d be stupid to nuke an upwind country they want to conquer anyways.
Escalation was demonstrated. No it’s not escalation all the way, but this is an escalation in response to an escalation.
Perhaps the size of the response escalation, as compared to a declared or assumed promised response escalation, implies some kind of “bluff” was detected. Like maybe Russia said it’d spend 4 escalation points and instead only spent 2 escalation points, but the relative size doesn’t change the fact escalation just occurred. That’s a bad thing.
you say “test” I hear “stock problems”
Plus the “Russia launches ICBM!!!” headline potential.
They pull 70 years old tanks out of storage all the time, they have used rare nuke-safe tanks on the battlefield, they have to beg North Korea (!) for help and more.
This just screams stock and command problems.
They are losing so they are getting desperate and thus does tries stupid things.
Armchair General Valmond.
Naïve take.
Silly Russians don’t even know what continents are lol.
Wouldn’t it just be that the missile is an ICBM by model and design, and not based on this mission?
They misclicked the order and accidentally got INTRA Continental ones
Never buy from Temu
LOL inter and intra probably look the same to a half-drunk Russian.
What Russia wants us to think:
“O no, allowing Ukraine to fire atacms into Russia was to much escalation! We must back down!”
What we actually think:
“Russia ran out of missiles and has to reach deep down its soviet arsenal to fire the last thing it’s got. Next, they’ll fire an R7”
Russia declares US missile base in Poland a target
uh… that would get all of NATO involved, wouldn’t it?
Declaring it? No.
Firing on it? Yes!
Yes, an attack on a NATO member would immedialy invoke article 5 (which has only been done once in history - 9/11)
ruzzia is running out of everything and using its last reserves.
EU and NATO need to pool together every resource to bankrupt this rotten state and drive it from Ukrainian soil. The defeat has to be so harsh that the ruzzkis won’t be able to cross any border forever. Confine them to their own country, period.
And denuclearise them.
As seen they cannot behave.
America here…heh. We’re gonna be useless come January!
Actually we might even be working against the cause. It would not surprise me to see trumps cabinet do shitty things like sending russia weapons and money.
In fact, I’m basically expecting it.
Just know that it’s not ALL America. Just like 52% of us…or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.
…down to 49% now as the votes keep coming in; the russian propaganda apparatus reaches deep but not yet that deep…
I just hope that Trump’s miserable health gets the better of him before he gets the chance to backstab the whole of the western world. As shitty as Vance may be, he comes across as much less in love with Putin than Trumpler.
…or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.
No. I hold those who didn’t vote accountable too.
The moment the Democrats lost the election was the one when Harris was asked what she would do differently than Biden and her answer was basically “nothing”. If you ever run for president and are asked that question, just pick something at random and say “Biden does not enough for X. I would make sure that X would be a priority issue!”
This level of stupidity is not the voter’s (or non-voter’s) fault. Dems made their bed rock and now everyone has to lie in it.
That’s not accurate though, there were a number of things she was going to do differently than Biden. She talked about having less taxes on billionaires than Biden did. She talked about less consumer protection than Biden was going to give and she and her billionaire Tech Bro donors were happily about to oust Lina Khan. Unlike Biden she didn’t make unions a large part of her campaign. She did want to do things differently than Biden, it’s just all the things she wanted to do differently were the things people like about Joe Biden.
The mistakes of the Harris campaign are not the fault of the non-voters.
The fact that voters didn’t turn out to vote against literal and clearly fucking stated fascism is the fault of the non-voters.
Exactly. I don’t care how ineffective the not fascists are. Both sides should have done better
Exactly. Nonvoters didn’t vote against insane evil, that is fully on them no matter how they spin it.
‘Vote for me or you are a bad person’ doesn’t sell, never has. Democrats had a wakeup call 8 years ago and let it pass them by. Hopefully they take it this time and strengthen the party and candidates.
irrelevant… you shouldn’t need to sell “not fascism”
being a fucking shit campaign is the dems fault
choosing not to vote against literal fascism remains the fault of those people who did not vote
responsibility can be shared; the world is not black and white or pure good and evil
Dude listen to yourself .
Harris was literally up against a fucking emperor wannabe who already fucked the countey in incredibly short order, backed by a batshit party openly admitting they wanted to implement project 2025.
This is not a situation where you go “hmm, well she didn’t quite tickle my balls enough, so I guess i’ll let the fascists win”. And if you do, you are complicit. You got the chance to stand up and instead you shoved your head up your own arse
You also underestimate the stupidity of the average voter/person. Most people vote on vibes, not policy, and don’t pay that much actual attention to politics.
The US reached the “bread and circuses” stage of politics a decade or so ago. Once the population figures out it can vote itself money (or the promise of money) it’s all over.
Look at the campaign promises of the incoming president. “More for you, not them”, sums it up. The problem is that everyone hopes they are the “you” in that offer.
Society is in a rotten state. People don’t care about others or others’ rights, they only care about themselves in the depraved delusion that one day they will have “made it”. Look back 4 years ago when people were too selfish to cut out their weekend binge drinking or simply wearing a mask to protect others (and themselves). Introspection, empathy, consideration, those are gone, it’s all about self-worth, “confidence” (god how I hate that word) and self-respect to push the inevitable realization that what one is doing is unsustainable and damaging to everyone else far, far back into the future.
I don’t know why you take so much offense that I wrote that it doesn’t surprise me one bit that a fascist is elected over someone who people are sure to not benefit from. The 40 users of lemmy who show respect and care are not representative to society as a whole from what I’ve seen.
Worth pointing out this is highly dependant on where you live.
This is not universal
The non-voters tacitly agreed to let fascism happen. I totally get that people weren’t happy about voting for Harris, I certainly wouldn’t have been. But if I have choice between a carbuncle on my ass on the one hand, and AIDS, Ebola, testicle cancer and leprosy combined on the other hand, the choice is easy.
But what if the candidate denied he had leprosy?
well shit i guess we better ignore all those obvious symptoms of leprosy in that case… obviously it was just joking
He got 76,916,317 votes (49.9%) (currently, counting hasn’t finished)
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/
Actually we might even be working against the cause.
That would mean destruction of NATO. No European country can be in a defense alliance with a country that actively support an invasion by Russia in Europe.
Trump doesn’t care about the NATO. He thinks it’s a big US-led charity organization that protects the weak, poor other countries who rally under the umbrella because murricah is just so superior and cool. I don’t think he actively seeks to destroy it, but if his actions lead to its downfall, he would not be upset at all.
What the incoming president fails to understand is that the money that the US funnels towards NATO helps keep a lid on conflicts “over there”, so they don’t end up “over here”, like WWII.
Yeah NATO is a force for American power. It gives us undue influence in the world. And also I can’t imagine wanting a powerful United States and not wanting a powerful nato. It’s a threat of overwhelming force so we can only spend money instead of American lives on stabilizing our interests and critical allies. It’s also a way to have MAD countries without nuclear proliferation, or allowing allies we don’t want to have nukes (Germany) to have them.
What the president elect fails to understand is mainly how the world works if your daddy isn’t able to give you a small loan of a million bucks.
It wouldn’t. The U.S. is a big part of NATO, but NATO will live on without the U.S. the European Union has very much the same clauses - even the U.K. would still be part of that.
IDK if we can throw out USA in case they work against us, maybe we will form a new alliance without them?
But maybe I should have written NATO as we used to know it will be dead.
That would mean destruction of NATO.
IIRC that’s an explicit Project 2025 goal, but maybe I misremember.
That really is a baffling project. Like it’s American fascism but instead of attempting to form an axis it seems to be attempting to piss off everyone that might’ve considered joining us as fast as possible. Also it involves just random shooting our own feet pointlessly
It’s like if Hitler had been an isolationist.
Yep, he’s probably ending nato. Or at least he keeps promising to do that, and there’s nothing that will stop him, so… Good luck! We’ll all fucking need it!
If Trump continues the policies of his first term, but dial it up as many say he will. He will destroy not only NATO, but American international influence in general, because nobody can trust USA. That will do a lot of harm to American economics especially over time, USA has essentially decided the terms for international trade since WW2, helped by their many allies, ending that will be very costly for USA.
yeah honest at least from the people i’ve spoken to in my country (australia, so take the opinion of the voting populace with a grain of salt - we’re entirely dependant on the US for defence against china, and even more so now that we’re buying US nuclear subs which we have no capacity to maintain ourselves since we literally have to even make laws to deal with nuclear to deal with them)
… sorry rambletangent
… last time people were like “okay well we know that the 4 years are up soon and stability will return”… this round, the world really can’t trust the stability of the US: from now on, who the fuck knows what’s going to happen? we just have to make backup plans, and that severely curtails US influence because there are suddenly alternatives - and nobody wanted alternatives - we all wanted to give the US power (well, kinda)… but you just can’t rely on US politics any more when it’s existentially important
Yeah as an American that’s one of the frustrating parts of all this. Like, a lot of our wealth came from dependability. “We give you good deals on military technology that would’ve cost you more to make, you give us good deals elsewhere. Meanwhile this means we dominate the military technology market and we always have the best equipment and produce a stable environment in which those who are on good terms with us are more economically and militarily stable. And anyone who goes against us now can’t maintain their equipment.” Then these fucks ruin a pretty good deal we had not out of ideals against our hegemony but because they think we don’t have it good enough
After how we treated the Kurds, I cannot believe anyone still trusts us. We have a lot of shit in our house that needs cleaning, and we sure do seem to be shooting all the maids…
It’s not even 52%, in the end it’s ended up being 50% VS 48.3%. He barely got half of all votes with the overall gap only being 2.6 million votes. That’s razor thin, the only reason it worked out the way it did (apparent “easy win”) is because of the electoral college system, which is a bit biased towards conservatism anyway by giving quite a bit of power to smaller, less populated states.
Besides that, I do agree that it’s a bit of a question what will happen. I’ve seen people say that Rubio and Waltz appear to indicate a slightly different course but no one really knows besides the coming government.
Numbers are still coming in, but Trump is less than 50% currently.
Pretty sure they did this as nuclear sabre rattling in response to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks, not because of resource constraints.
Russia has that black poop from the ground which is a valuable enough resource to be bought by someone for something .
It goes bankrupt if suddenly oil consumption drops 3 times. Or something like that. But not immediately even then, because it has reserves.
EU and NATO are not interested in Russia imploding. They are showing very clearly that their intention is to softly bleed it so that it wouldn’t be too aggressive, but also to preserve its current regime, because that regime is convenient.
It’s just the sad truth.
As to why Western countries always supported said regime, since Yeltsin usurping power in 1993, - I just don’t know.
The said regime is also happens to be backed nearly universally by the russian population and is the core source of its power.
The “west is to blame” narrative is typical russian victim-hood polemics.
The said regime is also happens to be backed nearly universally by the russian population and is the core source of its power.
No it’s not. I don’t think you have even been to Russia.
There is a sizeable proportion of population not yet penetrated by the whole idea of democracy, but those would back any “current” regime.
The “west is to blame” narrative is typical russian victim-hood polemics.
In real life everybody is to blame, it’s just a question of proportions.
There is a sizeable proportion of population not yet penetrated by the whole idea of democracy, but those would back any “current” regime.
You’re infantilizating the russian population. Political satirical TV shows in the 90s (remember this was before the internet) easily rivaled what you would see even on current US TV. Yet most russians were happy to accept a clampdown on independent TV and reelected putin in 2004 (generally considered a free and fair election). And they were OK with the comical medvedev seat warming exercise in 2008, not to mention putin’s formal return in 2012.
The russians would never back any political force that would reject imperialism or even acknowledge russian crimes. Even the alleged “opposition” in the form of Navalniy’s gang is deeply committed to imperialism.
In real life everybody is to blame, it’s just a question of proportions.
This is a non-sequitur. The ultimate responsibility for the state of russian politics lies on the russians themselves.
It’s about the choices they make. There is nothing inherent to russian society/culture that would justify such a state of affairs.
You’re infantilizating the russian population. Political satirical TV shows in the 90s (remember this was before the internet) easily rivaled what you would see even on current US TV. Yet most russians were happy to accept a clampdown on independent TV and reelected putin in 2004 (generally considered a free and fair election). And they were OK with the comical medvedev seat warming exercise in 2008, not to mention putin’s formal return in 2012.
This whole paragraph does not contradict what I said, but your tone seems to suggest it does.
Also those satirical TV shows were all basically crying wildly that bad things are coming. Said bad things came. So?
Anyway, this doesn’t make the Russian population any more or less infantile than the Ukrainian population.
The russians would never back any political force that would reject imperialism or even acknowledge russian crimes. Even the alleged “opposition” in the form of Navalniy’s gang is deeply committed to imperialism.
That political force was dissolved after its key figures were murdered or ridiculed on TV 24/7 in the late 90s and early 00s. It definitely existed.
Also Navalny’s ideas have changed a lot over time. If you are referring to his “Crimea is not a sandwich” statement, it’s just correct - international law has such a thing as right of self-determination, regardless of what Ukrainian laws say. The fact of military aggression doesn’t negate that right.
This is a non-sequitur. The ultimate responsibility for the state of russian politics lies on the russians themselves.
My cousins’ father is from Artsakh, Ukrainian politicians congratulated Azeris with their crimes. I couldn’t care less what Ukrainians have to say on responsibility after that. Try following your own declared principles first. Otherwise it’s not even funny.
It’s about the choices they make. There is nothing inherent to russian society/culture that would justify such a state of affairs.
People are responsible to the degree the structure of power is affected by their choices. Said structure right now is affected negligibly by most of the Russian population.
I never said russians were more or less infantile than any other group of people. I said your inability to treat russian like adults who are responsible for their actions (“they’ve never seen democracy”, “the west has backed Yeltsin since 1993”) is an infantilization of russian society. Is this not true?
Also those satirical TV shows were all basically crying wildly that bad things are coming. Said bad things came. So?
I referenced the satirical political shows during the 90s to highlight that the russians did have experience with an independent (perhaps imperfect) mass market press. Yet they did not see this as important. What do you mean by “bad things are coming”? Can you be clear and specific and not beat around the bush? Because it sounds like you haven’t actually lived in russia and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Also Navalny’s ideas have changed a lot over time. If you are referring to his “Crimea is not a sandwich” statement, it’s just correct - international law has such a thing as right of self-determination, regardless of what Ukrainian laws say. The fact of military aggression doesn’t negate that right.
Thank you for proving my point about broad support for imperialism among russian society.
People are responsible to the degree the structure of power is affected by their choices. Said structure right now is affected negligibly by most of the Russian population.
And who is ultimately responsible for the said [russian political] structure right now?
I never said russians were more or less infantile than any other group of people. I said your inability to treat russian like adults who are responsible for their actions (“they’ve never seen democracy”, “the west has backed Yeltsin since 1993”) is an infantilization of russian society. Is this not true?
No, it’s my opinion of the humanity as a whole. My experience shows it’s infantile. There’s no moral principle obligating us to believe in something not confirmed with experience.
What do you mean by “bad things are coming”? Can you be clear and specific and not beat around the bush? Because it sounds like you haven’t actually lived in russia and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I thought you meant “Куклы” and such.
Thank you for proving my point about broad support for imperialism among russian society.
Right of self-determination is anti-imperialist. If the conflict were between Ukraine’s constitution and that right, Ukraine would be imperialist. It’s just not.
But hypothetically, if they ever want to, they have that right. And if you want to make the world better, there’s no use denying it. Especially since no region possibly votes in favor of voluntarily splitting from Ukraine in proximity of Russia, not after this war. I mean, it’s a clearly hypothetical question since they are occupied.
And who is ultimately responsible for the said [russian political] structure right now?
I’ve already said that responsibility is proportional to input in a decision, right?
So first and foremost people on top of it, diplomats, special services workers, intelligence workers, high-ranking military people.
Then those whose input is a bit less.
Other than that, I guess one can differentiate by how someone voted in their life.
Well, I’m sure the US military complex is excited to test whether they can swat these out of the sky with their expensive toys. Now they have a chance to try.
And the more Russia launches, surely that technology will improve
Why would Trump want to fight Russia? He loves russia
He’s a big narcissist so having capabilities is probably going to flatter his ego.
And they aired porn of his wife
Links for research plz
Well I guess we should be giving Ukraine some ICBM’s next. Or would that not be fair? :')
Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn’t Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.
I was under the impression that ICBMs weren’t all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn’t enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you’re firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn’t likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.
I suspect the use of an RS-26 was meant to serve as a provocation/response to the recent ATACMs strikes.
I posted elsewhere about the rumour Russia was going to fire an RS26.
I got called a liar and warmonger.
Well, my next prediction remains the same: Russia WILL eventually use nukes. Because there will come a moment of “use it or lose it”, and Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
You see why you are called out. Putin will never use nukes. He will die if he does so and he fears for his life.
Nuclear weapons launched on the west only work as a threat, they don’t actually work for anything really except that.
Secondly, they do not have any tactical gains to have from tactical nukes (and it seems they do no longer have the batallions needed to use them, so they’d nuke themselves as much as the Ukrainians), and they would lose support from China and India for using them which would really hasten the downfall of the Russian regime.
So no, there is no nUkes cOmMing.
Even I, a certified armchair general, knows this.
Edit: you got called out because you said this:
There’s rumours that Russia is readying a RS26 missile at this very moment in retaliation.
If they actually do this, the war will go nuclear.
Very interesting news, kudos to you for finding and sharing them (really), but the rest is fear mongering.
@Valmond @Kyrgizion Plus, there is a high probability that the warheads turn out to be inoperable due to neglected pit maintenance.
Yes, but they have, supposedly, 6.000 so for now there are most certainly some that have received maintenance and scavenged material from the others.
@Valmond @Kyrgizion exception: tac nuke over uninhabited land or 20.000 ft over the sea (but only after the succ invasion of e. G. Finnish wetlands or the Baltics)
Why would they do that? Lots to lose nothing really to gain?
Shock and awe, and a demonstration that they do infact have operational nukes, can deliver them and are prepared to use them. Brinkmanship.
@Streetlights @Valmond exactly. They would likely only do it when already entered the NATO war rubicon… In order to divide NATO politically
There’s still a few steps left on the escalation ladder.
Conceivably I can see them detonating a nuke somewhere over the blacksea at a high enough altitude to minimise fallout as a demonstration that they are serious and have the capability.
I think they would use a tactical one in Kursk since it’s “their” territory.
Russia: launches nuke…
West: does nothing because they don’t want to start WW3
Russia: that’s what I thought bitch
Seems to be the way things are going.
Russia prefers a destroyed world over an intact one without Russia.
That much is true, but none of this is existential. If the Russian military packs up and heads home, Russia continues to exist. They don’t want to do that ofc, but obviously Russia prefers an intact world with Russia compared to a destroyed world.
Launching just one sounds like the primary purpose is for messaging, not taking out whatever single target. They want to remind Europeans that they aren’t safe just because they live far away. The west has been getting numb to the constant threats of using nuclear weapons. I believe this launch is to give those threats more weight again.
The US will no longer be a threat to Russian ambitions come January. Expect an urgent fear campaign to get the rest of NATO to no longer want to stick their necks out for Ukraine.
Nah, we’re not numb. But the fact of the matter is, we can’t change anything and letting him win is not going to work, because what’s the alternative? Being subjugated or attacked at a later state?
Putin should not forget however, that “we”, the EU, also have Nukes and will retaliate, if push comes to shove. Those threats are meaningless either way.
Yeah this is far more a matter of there being a line. Putin has been aggressive towards nato and the eu for a long time. He’s currently invading countries when they get closer to us and cracking down on his own citizens’ rights. It’s clear he won’t stop with Ukraine. He can rattle his saber all he wants. If he fires a nuke France alone can destroy all of Russia that matters, and that’s assuming his fuckery with the US stops us from doing our duty to MAD and NATO.
This missile is only “Intercontinental” if you launch it from the edge of a continent. It’s got about 6000km of range, which is a lot, but these are obviously meant for use in Europe. They were probably thinking of London and Paris when designing them though.
These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.
It was to send a message similar to how the Iranian drone attack on Israel in April was to send a message that they can launch a bunch of $2,000 drones and cause Israel to have to launch $2 million missiles and aircraft to take them out.
IMHO they might be just making a threat this way. Kremlin folks think that’s the way diplomacy works. See, we’ve launched a missile that can be used to send nukes. That’s our very subtle and diplomatic warning. We both understand what that means, yes? Let’s look very smart and diplomatic.
They may think that looks cool.
So this is confirmation then that the storm shadow strike hit someone important?
Maybe they just ran out of any other missiles.
They for sure ran out of winning strategies.
Unfortunately, they have been making territorial gains this year. They pay for each metre with horrendous manpower losses, but life is cheap in Russia and they have demonstrated they are more than willing to keep this up.
IMO the gains are quite small, and the meat, again IMO, will not last forever.
They seems to use even more meat and less vehicles, so maybe they are in shortage there too…
Also, the ruble went down the toilet, it lost 3% in the last 24h, sitting at 104.3 ru/$ and I don’t think it will stop at all this time. Economists predict the crash at 120 or 130 ruble per dollar.
It seems like it all comes together.
How do we know this is the first and not just the first successful launch?
Afaik, ICBMs are trackibly loud. It’s difficult to fire one without everyone noticing immediately
But are failed launches trackable? My point is that this may not be the first attempt. If their missile systems are anything like everything else in their arsenal, a successful launch is a one off exception.
A failed launch, as in an initially successful launch that went wrong in the air, can afterwards be spotted even on commercial satellite images: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/09/satellite-images-suggest-test-of-russian-super-weapon-failed-spectacularly/ The usa and nato probably know long before those amateur spotters do.
If the rocket fails to launch at all when the button is pressed, then noone will be allowed to know probably. It could be that they tried to launch 10 and only 1 ignited, or maybe there was just the one. Russia isn’t going to tell the truth about anything so it’s anyone’s guess. If it fails to ignite, then I’d expect them to just pack up the rocket again and continue to pretend doing maintenance and have soldiers guarding the stuff.
They probably are afterwards. Most sat pics trained on that have some kind of image recognition stuff running in the background and they flag that. Apparently that’s how that Satan failure was also firstly detected
Edit: I also wouldn’t be so sure about the ICBMs being in the same state as everything else.
You mean the weapons that are a) very very expensive b) never supposed to actually being used?
It’s like their nuclear capability. Very expensive to keep in shape.
Not saying they don’t have any, but if you were a corrupt russian general (are there non corrupt ones?) I bet they only took care of a couple on the houndreds.
A couple of hundred with MIRV are enough to absolutely and completely wreak havoc, not even mentioning nuclear winter and all that follows… Also, don’t forget the subs
Sure, but putin will never do that.
Ever.
I’m curious how the allies know an ICBM isn’t a nuke
Until it explodes, you don’t.
You don’t, which why (aside from cost) nations don’t use them as toys.
Yeah. If you want to demonstrate ICBM capability you launch a satellite, especially a lunar satellite. Everyone plays nice and celebrates the science while understanding that your rocketry can get a payload into orbit with enough fuel and accuracy to accelerate and maneuver to exactly where you want to go.
If an ICBM comes at a MAD nation standing orders for nuclear strikes go into effect. Using it with conventional munitions on a MAD nation is a fast way to get your entire population killed without returning the favor.
You wait till it explodes and check the NDDS.
Dyatlov: What does the dosimeter say?
Akimov: 3.6 roentgen. But that’s as high as the meter…
Dyatlov: 3.6 - not great, not terrible.
Intressting. So by delivering more of them to Ukraine we lower Russias arsenal.
Ukraine has not received ICBMs, articles stating Ukraine has received long range missiles are wrong, Ukraine has only received SHORT ranged missiles. up to 300 miles. It’s longer range than artillery, but not long range missiles. Long range missiles have several thousand miles range.
Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine and without nukes to Russia as well. They are acurate enough to destroy something using a nuke. So missing by a few hundret meters is fine. With conventional explosive that is however pretty much useless.
This is most likely the answer for Biden allowing the use of those short range system and it would be wonderfull to see Russia blow up its nuclear missiles for nothing.
Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine
Absolutely.
That’s interesting.
Video of impacts (supposedly)
I’ll wait for a non-twitter source
Ok, thanks for sharing.
Death to X
