Supposedly, an RS-26 was launched from Astrakhan and targeted at infrastructure in Dnipro.
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?
Yes, an attack on a NATO member would immedialy invoke article 5 (which has only been done once in history - 9/11)
Well I guess we should be giving Ukraine some ICBM’s next. Or would that not be fair? :')
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
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.
Pretty sure they did this as nuclear sabre rattling in response to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks, not because of resource constraints.
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.
…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.
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?
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.
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.
That would mean destruction of NATO.
IIRC that’s an explicit Project 2025 goal, but maybe I misremember.
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.
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.
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.
So this is confirmation then that the storm shadow strike hit someone important?
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.
I’m curious how the allies know an ICBM isn’t a nuke
You don’t, which why (aside from cost) nations don’t use them as toys.
Until it explodes, you don’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Russia: launches nuke…
West: does nothing because they don’t want to start WW3
Russia: that’s what I thought removed
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.
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.
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.
These missiles are designed with Western Europe in mind. Specifically, to deter them from coming to help Eastern Europe.
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.
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.
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)
Death to X
I’ll wait for a non-twitter source
Ok, thanks for sharing.
