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

7 points

That’s interesting.

permalink
report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
12 points

Intressting. So by delivering more of them to Ukraine we lower Russias arsenal.

permalink
report
reply
10 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine

Absolutely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
5 points
*

These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

I suspect the use of an RS-26 was meant to serve as a provocation/response to the recent ATACMs strikes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-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