Supposedly, an RS-26 was launched from Astrakhan and targeted at infrastructure in Dnipro.

-2 points
permalink
report
reply
12 points

I’ll wait for a non-twitter source

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Ok, thanks for sharing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Death to X

permalink
report
parent
reply
83 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
77 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

…or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.

No. I hold those who didn’t vote accountable too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

He got 76,916,317 votes (49.9%) (currently, counting hasn’t finished)

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Numbers are still coming in, but Trump is less than 50% currently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

That would mean destruction of NATO.

IIRC that’s an explicit Project 2025 goal, but maybe I misremember.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

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!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Pretty sure they did this as nuclear sabre rattling in response to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks, not because of resource constraints.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And denuclearise them.

As seen they cannot behave.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

How do we know this is the first and not just the first successful launch?

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Afaik, ICBMs are trackibly loud. It’s difficult to fire one without everyone noticing immediately

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

Russia declares US missile base in Poland a target

uh… that would get all of NATO involved, wouldn’t it?

permalink
report
reply
16 points
*

Yes, an attack on a NATO member would immedialy invoke article 5 (which has only been done once in history - 9/11)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Declaring it? No.

Firing on it? Yes!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

you say “test” I hear “stock problems”

permalink
report
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Naïve take.

permalink
report
parent
reply