It will be public but I'm still working on it, its unusable yet (code rendering and painting works, but no feedback loop, no file format to save reviews, etc.): https://imgur.com/a/zpBpfco
Demerdzhiev, Radev and their entire cabinet in general just avoid blaming Russia for some “unknown” reason as a blanket policy. Yesterday, Russia bombed two Ukrainian ships super close to Bulgaria’s waters in the Black Sea, 11 civilians died, and the PM still says we can’t make any conclusions about the perpetrators when questioned in parliament today.
I’m trying to say that the logical conclusion is to shift the responsibility explicitly to SpaceX, since otherwise you have to admit the attacks are state sponsored and you have to name the perpetrator.
They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone. Yes yes logic says it must be Russia but we need concrete evidence, so unfortunate.
Ukraine responds to Russian attacks? Why Ukraine doesn’t want peace! Why Ukraine doesn’t just capitulate? The coalition of war(he means countries who support Ukraine militarily) is causing so much suffering.
> They just move the burden of proof and responsibility as needed. 4 ships carrying Ukraine cargo sunk by drones in Bulgarian waters, one of the ships Ukraine owned and the crew full of Ukrainians? No evidence whatsoever on who could have done it so we don’t blame anyone
Well, the official stance of the EU a couple of years ago, when the Nordstream pipeline was attacked, was that it was Russia (even though it was against its interests). So we can have something similar here, right? That it was Ukraine that sunk those vessels. I understand the Bulgarian PM, he's just trying to be a regular EU politician.
Ukraine innovates and Russia copies/addapts. Russia has ALWAYS been good at this game. Russia reminds me so much of the roman military in this sense, extremely good at copying and incorporating foreign military tactics/equipment.
Think of the initial long convoys ukraine destroyed, the bayraktars -- Russia addapted, the then the brilliant Eastern campaign where Ukraine managed to route the russians -- Russia adapted, that stopped working, then the indiscriminate massive artilery strikes Russia was doing -- ukraine started using better western artilery and himars, stopped the russians but the russians also addapted spread their logistics and so on; then the drones -- russia copied those even innovated with fiberoptic drones, then the Shaheds, ukraine adapted with fpv interceptors, then Russia started using jet powered interceptors, balistic missiles -- Ukraine initially stunned the world with Patriot interceptors but Russia kept firing until Ukraine ran out of interceptors, then the USV -- Ukraine had and still has great success with them, but look, Russia started using USVs also and Ukraine has no response to those.
It looks like the end will be decided by the country who just has more resources and willpower to continue.
I'm seriously scared for the next years -- the US is clearly turning hostile to Ukraine, Europe is turing far right with russian puppets everywhere.
I think more precise language is important here. It is my perception that a small faction that currently controls the federal US government is hostile to Ukraine. A large majority of the general population of the US seems to support Ukraine.
You might argue that this distinction doesn't change the reality for Ukraine's prospects, but I disagree. The small anti-Ukraine faction in the US is becoming increasingly unpopular within the US. It is doubtful its dominance of the US executive branch will survive the next general election in two years. Its total control of the US government may not survive another month.
The willpower of Ukraine has been underestimated throughout this conflict. It seems a cinch it will hold strong for three more weeks. Then the US campaign for President begins in earnest and it would not be surprising for many US politicians to press against the anti-Ukraine faction in a bid for control of the US Presidency. The US Congress may try to remove itself from under the thumb of the current president and you might see sweeping changes in as little as three months. Or you might not.
Take courage. I think Ukraine's resolution to survive will outlast the influence of Putin fans who happen to have an outsized influence in US politics at the moment.
> large majority of the general population of the US seems to support Ukraine
“61% of Americans sympathize more with Ukraine, compared to only 3% who sympathize more with Russia; 22% who take neither side” [1]. (45% of MAGA supporters, 63% of GOP.)
>Today too, after western proclamation of Ukrainian victory for the last 3+ years, it is clear that Ukraine is facing defeat and cannot win
It was equally clear - also to me - that Ukraine is facing defeat in two or three days after the start of large scale invasion. And yet here we are, three years later.
They're doing great. Even if they surrendered today, they exceeded my initial expectations like 300 times already.
They've lost around 20% of their territory with no hope of getting it back because they don't have the required number (or armaments) to wage a proper counter offensive. They've lost around 1/4th of their armed force personnels and are now earning the ire of their citizens who are being forcefully conscripted to fight a war they don't want to fight. Huge number of their citizens have migrated to other countries. Their economy is totally devastated. They cannot re-build their country without the mercy, charity and exploitation of foreign powers. As the war drags on, they are getting to the point of no return from where they will not be able to recover from this destruction of population, territorial geopolitics, economy ...
Sure, those who hate the Russians can enjoy how much the war costs them and weakens them. But only racist Europeans have a vested interest in cheering Ukraine's leader to keep fighting an unwinnable war, while they cleverly stay out of it, because they don't care about Ukraine too - Slavs fighting Slavs is good politics for them.
> They've lost around 20% of their territory with no hope of getting it back.
I don't think that's the winning end game for Ukraine, but I also don't see there being a realistic winning end game.
One scenario would be that Russia f..ks of with that 20% taken and calls it a success (though strategically it is an enormous blunder), like they did in Finland and leaves Ukraine alone after that -- but is this realistic to happen?
Or Russia collapses internally and Ukraine does take back all the theritory.
Or the world steps in and secures a lasting peace for Ukraine.
Or Russia realizes Ukraine will outlast it because of external support and realizes how stupid and lose-lose this war is.
Or Ukraine collapses and Russia takes an even larger chunk and installs a puppet regime in Kiev.
But Russia seems unwilling to fuck off and call it quits because it's backed by China and has extended its influence in the USA and EU so it bets it can outlast Ukraine.
In WWII, it took the USSR 14 months to fight against Germany all through Ukraine, for about 1.4 million killed. The current Russian war against Ukraine is in its 56th month, losses are ~0.6 million killed and Russia holds about 19% of Ukraine, having gained 0.3% over the past year with ~140k killed.
The numbers speak for themselves on who's winning and who's losing the war.
> ... having gained 0.3% over the past year with ~140k killed.
Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
Also, if one assumes that capturing territory is their only military goal, that does sound bad. It isn't though, right? With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever. And their military goals have focused on this task - dismembering the country (which, as you pointed, they have done so by capturing around 20% of its territory, with maybe another 5% still to be occupied?), destroying their economic infrastructure (the captured territory had an impact on Ukraine's GDP loss, 75-80% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has already been decimated, and their only port was targeted this year - if the war continues, Russia plans to capture Odessa too and convert Ukraine into a land-locked country), destroying Ukraine's military infrastructure (Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine's local missile and drone manufacturing units this year), and by destroying Ukraine's army through attritional warfare (nearly a quarter of Ukraine's army has been killed or injured - sure, way less than that of Russia, but unlike Russia Ukraine can't afford to lose its people).
(In other words, Russia is in no hurry to capture the remaining 4-5% of territory it seeks, because Ukraine will not stop fighting even after that is captured, and dragging the war helps Russia ensure that it can meet its other military goals too).
But ofcourse, why should Europeans care if Ukraine is being destroyed, as long as they kill as many Russians as possible?
> Russia is in no hurry to capture the remaining 4-5%.
The grapes are sour.
Russia is absolutely in a hurry because the war is hurting it tremendously, it simply is unable to do so at the moment, but it hopes it can undermine Ukraine's external support, which is indeed going much better than its campaign on the ukrainian front.
You are basing this on the assumption that the war will end if Russia captures this last 5% of territory. Why do you think so? Do you believe that Ukraine will suddenly stop fighting and agree to all of Russia's terms of surrender if Russia manages to occupy this last 5% territory? No (at least not with Zelensky). Do you think Russia will stop fighting? No, because Russia doesn't want a ceasefire (a stalemate). Remember, territorial occupation is just one of its military goals. If Ukraine is not willing to reduce the size of its military, through diplomatic treaties with Russia, then the Russians will strive to achieve this militarily. And for that it needs them to keep fighting. From my perspective, that's just a tragedy because there is no point in fighting a war you cannot win, and one that actually benefits your opponent as the war drags on.
> Don't forget, against a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed army.
The tendency among Russian apologists to belittle Ukraine at every opportunity and deny its independence is a defining trait, isn't it. The credit for keeping the Russian invaders at bay goes to Ukrainian drone manufacturers and drone crews, who are responsible for about 80% of all battlefield deaths. NATO countries have neither comparable expertise nor gear.
> Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine's local missile and drone manufacturing units this year
"Mostly" sounds modestly, if we take into account that Russia claims to have destroyed Ukrainian air force about three times over, yet Ukrainian MIGs keep flying. Likewise, the remaining drone manufacturers must be working overtime then, because the monthly Russian casualties in September were the highest of 2026, climbing from 32k in January to 46k in September. There are early reports that at least some Russian frontline units are no longer receiving reinforcements as they did before, because the people allocated for this year have been expended and there is no-one left to replace them. Earlier this year, Ukraine estimated that the breaking point would be somewhere around 50k casualties per month.
> With Ukraine, their major goal is to ensure that it remains a neutral state whose army and territory can't be used to economically or militarily threaten Russia ever.
The only place where I see such narratives besides the dead comments on HN is Russian state TV. Elsewhere, even among the Russian domestic experts, taking these propaganda narratives seriously is a quick way to discredit oneself. Hitler said that he invaded Poland to break Anglo-French encirclement of Germany and secure the country against aggression, yet we don't take such nonsense seriously, do we?
Let me know when you Europeans are ready to fight alongside the Ukrainians, so that they can actually win the war. Then we'll find out who is a "Russian apologists" or a "western troll" here ...
It is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. (Otherwise, why is Zelensky worried that the US might cutoff intelligence access to it?). And it is a fact that western superpowers don't like this fact to be highlighted because it reminds the rest of the world (the Global South) of the callousness of the superpowers in using other countries for their own political games. While most Europeans might be ignorant about it, the rest of the world recognizes the simple fact that this is actually a proxy war between western superpowers and Russia (+ China), where neither side actually cares much about Ukraine and sees it as a pawn. And the blame for this lies squarely on the inept and corrupt leadership of Ukraine for not understanding this.
It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed. And it is also factual that Russia has targeted and destroyed most of the local military infrastructure, including drone manufacturing units this year, so that Ukraine now depends on its manufacturing units abroad or foreign imports for its needs. Again, a smart move, which also has its drawbacks.
All these battle tactics, and some battle victories, doesn't change the basic maths of warfare though - even with the limited support from allies, Ukrainian military is outnumbered and outgunned by the more powerful Russian military and thus cannot defeat it alone. That is why they are losing - they have lost soldiers, territory, their citizens, their economic infrastructure and economy incapacitated to the point of no return.
It is also a fact that the cowardice of Europeans is apparent in that they can only offer Ukrainians keyboard warriors who cheer them to fight on with fake propaganda and platitudes, while putting down anyone else as "Russian apologists" for talking common sense. (Comparing Putin to Hitler is laughable. It's also a typical westerner attitude to politics to think in "black and white" - if you are not with me, you are against me and thus my enemy, your reasons be damned!).
> It is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army.
The idea that Russia is fighting the entire collective might of NATO is a popular and a convenient excuse in Russia to explain its failures, but that's very far from the truth. The most powerful member of NATO, the United States, accounts for about 60-65% of the combined military spending of all NATO members, but its support for Ukraine since the end of 2024 barely registers on charts: https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/_processed_/1/5/csm_mi...
In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine. The ten largest supporters of Ukraine (by contributions as a share of national GDP) are in fact all countries that share a border with Russia and prefer to help Ukrainians kick Russians on an already established battlefield instead of waiting until their borders get violated too.
> Otherwise, why is Zelensky worried that the US might cutoff intelligence access to it?
Cutoff from US sources is very painful, because the US has the best early warning system for detecting ballistic missile launches and loss of access leaves Ukrainian civilians without a chance to seek shelter before the missiles hit. Military value of such revenge attacks is near-zero. It is just pure terror against the civilian population like Hitler's V2 raids against London, and it's deeply shameful of the US to contribute to the terror by withholding information.
> While most Europeans might be ignorant about it, the rest of the world recognizes the simple fact that this is actually a proxy war between western superpowers and Russia (+ China), where neither side actually cares much about Ukraine and sees it as a pawn.
Trump's temper tantrums over his inability to force Ukraine to do what he wants clearly disprove the "proxy war" narrative, another popular Russian propaganda trope. As to the rest of the world, here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a violation of UN's charter and demanded a full and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop, scroll down to "Changes in Disapproval of Russia's Leadership Between 2021 and 2022" chart: https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re... Researchers summarised: "Despite significant Russian efforts to spread disinformation about the conflict, the massive shift in attitudes toward Russian leadership demonstrates that the geopolitical significance of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not lost on most of the world’s population."
> It is common knowledge that Ukraine moved most of their Air Force assets to other countries, to prevent its destruction. It was the right move, but also makes them less useful as it isn't immediately available when needed.
Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 airplanes and 284 helicopters that the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed. Not even close. Do the fantasies about the destruction of Ukraine's drone manufacturing industry come from the same sources?
> All these battle tactics, and some battle victories, doesn't change the basic maths of warfare though - even with the limited support from allies, Ukrainian military is outnumbered and outgunned by the more powerful Russian military and thus cannot defeat it alone. That is why they are losing - they have lost soldiers, territory, their citizens, their economic infrastructure and economy incapacitated to the point of no return.
Almost all of that was true of Finland as well when Russians invaded in 1939, but the Winter War is considered a Finnish victory, because Finland retained its independence, government and armed forces, and Russians failed to conquer and absorb the country, despite enormous numerical and material superiority. The Finnish term for the outcome is torjuntavoitto, literally translated as "repelling victory".
> Comparing Putin to Hitler is laughable.
Why? Putin brings him up quite often in his long pseudohistoric rants and has said that it was Poland's fault that Germany invaded. In the interview given to Tucker Carlson, he said that Hitler was effectively forced into the invasion after Poland refused to give in to Hitler's ultimatums. "Great" minds think alike, it seems.
You should be aware that this discussion has been shadow banned by the HN moderators. So only the 2 of us can see it, and it isn't available for the public. So you can cut down the propaganda and discuss facts if you are really interested in having a discussion on it. For me, it is a fact that this is a proxy war between NATO superpowers and Russia (+China). Ukraine is a victim here. Everything I say is based on that fact. If you disagree with that, then disapprove that or end the discussion.
> In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine.
In other words, over a period of 4+ years now, various NATO members have trained, armed, supported and financed Ukraine's army to fight the Russians. So, to repeat myself again - it is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago. That support for Ukraine, within NATO, is also declining is simply because Russia now has the upper-hand in this war, and NATO members are divided on whether it is beneficial for them to continue this proxy war.
> Cutoff from US sources is very painful ...
Yes, cutoff is painful because Ukraine cannot fight the Russians without NATO support, of which the US is the most militarily powerful member. The cutoff also highlights how dependent Ukraine is on NATO members to fight the Russians. And how NATO countries are supporting Ukraine against Russia. So stop arguing or pretending as if you aren't aware that that NATO is involved in this war when you know it very much is.
> Military value of such revenge attacks is near-zero. It is just pure terror against the civilian population ...
That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted". Sift through this propaganda and you find that both sides are targeting what they believe to be military targets and both sides are dismissive of the collateral damage. Ukraine being the military weaker country is obviously facing the worse end of this war. Zelensky has proved to be a poor leader for Ukraine. In this case, in failing to understand the concept of "escalation dominance" while being manipulated by the Europeans (mainly French, British and German in this case) to pointlessly escalate the war when they were already losing the war.
> Trump's temper tantrums over his inability to force Ukraine to do what he wants clearly disprove the "proxy war" narrative ...
The Trump administration realises that all the benefits of the proxy war that they could get has been derived and, as Russia cannot be economically or militarily defeated, it is best to end the war before Russia starts to benefit from it now.
> here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine..
And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war? We in the Global South understand that this is a proxy war between superpowers, it is dangerous for us to get dragged into it and as it happened because of the foolishness of Ukraine's own leader, it is their own hard political lesson to learn from.
> Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop ...
South American countries swing between left and right, and whenever the US backed right- come to power, obviously negative opinions against Russia increases.
> Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 airplanes and 284 helicopters that the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed.
I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar. The sources I have read claim that whatever the Ukrainian Air Force couldn't get out of their country, Russia has been successful in destroying most of it. Note that this also includes what NATO / EU members had donated to Ukraine.
> but the Winter War is considered a Finnish victory, ...
Only an ignorant delusional person would think that a country that had to surrender its territories to the winner of a war, is the "victor" of a war! The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms. And Russia reciprocated by not treating them as threat and let them retain its sovereignty on the rest of their territory. The Russians even went on to give them back some of their territory, if I remember right. The propaganda that Russia wants to capture Finland, then, or Ukraine now, is just a western one. Neither the western superpowers or Russia want their territory (except parts of it for tactical military reasons) - what they both want is the allegiance of these country so they provide a buffer and cannon fodder in future wars.
As for Putin and Hitler ....
The closest leader who is similar to Hitler is Winston Churchill. Both were racist imperialists who believed in white superiority and looked down on other races. Remember that Hitler is not condemned for his war time tactics, as the Russian, British and Americans employed similar tactics in targeting and bombing innocent civilians in Germany and Japan. What Hitler is condemned for is the genocide of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others he considered "inferior". Churchill matched him in this callousness when he created the Bengal famine and let millions of Indians starve to death, even as 10's of millions indians and Africans were also forced to fight for British, in World War 2. European leaders' racism may have been muted to that of Hitler, but wasn't any different really and is apparent in that the French and the British did not want "coloured" soldiers in their victory parades (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm or https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240824-liberation-of-paris-ho... ).
Putin is many thing, but not an extremist like any of these European leaders ...
As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them. (It is interesting to me how encouraging the west is in peddling revisionist history on WW2 so that Russia today can be demonised, and its role in defeating Hitler minimised and forgotten by the current generation).
> And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago.
Let me guess, in three days?
The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning. The airborne attack of Hostomel airport was successfully repelled, leading to failure to capture Kyiv, leading to failure to decapitate the military command structure, leading to successful coordinated counterattacks on the overstretched invasion force.
Five years and 1.5 million casualties later, Russia has still not managed to recover where it was a few weeks into the war, because it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
> That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted".
Sure. That's why we need to go beyond claims and investigate facts. Russian terror on Ukrainian civilians is widely documented. Eg, in Kherson, where Russian attacks are known as "human safari". UN: "From July 2024, Russian forces have recurrently killed and injured civilians in an area stretching over more than 100 kilometres along the right bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Province. The drone attacks have been widespread, systematic and conducted as part of a coordinated state policy. /---/ The circumstances of the attacks, the videos, and the explicit threatening text posts demonstrate that Russian armed forces and those supporting them have committed acts or threats of violence for the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population, in violation of international humanitarian law." https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-commissio...
> And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war?
Morocco provided tanks, Cambodia sent military specialists to teach demining, Sudan provided mortar ammunition, etc. The "South-vs-North" dichotomy is artificial and mainly lives as yet another Russian propaganda trope. The territorial integrity of sovereign states is such a fundamental principle that it is understood and valued around the world, perhaps even more so in countries that have themselves suffered foreign invasions and colonization and are still recovering from the long-lasting damage.
> I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar
Stated by the Russian MoD, widely circulated by all major Russian news outlets, including the state-owned TASS: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/28046063
Russian war correspondents openly ridicule such statements, as well as comments like yours, according to which everything in Ukraine has already been blown up five times over. Yet the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Russian official recruitment target is 34k soldiers per month, of which about 29k gets filled. Losses have been 37k this month, expected to reach 50k by the end. Territorial gains since the start of the summer, the most advantageous time of the year, have been 180 sq km in total, which is a rounding error in a country of 603 000 sq km. The numbers speak for themselves.
> The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms.
Not quite so. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939, Hitler and Stalin agreed how to divide Eastern Europe. Germany was given a free hand to invade Poland, Russians were expected to attack at the same time from east, but stalled and attacked Poland a few weeks later. After German and Russian forces had met in Poland and held a joint victory parade, Russians set their sights on Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which Germany had left to them with the pact. Map: https://konzervativizmus.sk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/36990...
All four got ultimatums demanding military bases on their soil to satisfy Russian "security concerns". Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania accepted the demands. Those bases were then used as staging areas for overthrowing national governments and installing puppet regimes loyal to Moscow that unleashed widespread terror against the local population to keep them under control. These oppressive puppet governments survived for half a century, until the end of the USSR. Latvia suffered the most. By the end of the 1980s, Latvians were on the verge of becoming a minority in their own country due to resettlement policies of Russians into Latvia.
Finland was the only one that refused the demands and took up arms and gained a victory by remaining independent instead of following the tragedy of its southern neighbors.
This is why Russian "security concerns" is not a phrase anyone can take seriously in North-Eastern Europe. Everyone's already seen what it means. Talking about Russian "security concerns" in a serious tone is like walking around with a giant "IDIOT" painted on your forehead.
> As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them.
Once again you fail to separate artificial pretexts from the truth. In Hitler's own words: "Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problems." (23 May 1939 speech to his top military commanders, later used as key evidence at the Nuremberg trials as a proof of premeditated plan for conquest of Poland.)
Hitler was ideologically motivated to conquer Europe using North American westward expansion as a model (mixed with German agrarian romanticism), and what Poland did or didn't do had ultimately little importance. Putin, too, has an ideological worldview that was drilled into him at the KGB: the security apparatus mentality of a totalitarian dictatorship, layered on top of a much broader Russian imperialism, which is rooted in centuries of territorial expansion and the subjugation of other peoples. Russia didn't come to span 11 timezones through acts of kindness, you know.
- The invasion plan crumbled before Ukraine got any foreign aid worth mentioning.
Another propaganda which doesn't stand up to scrutiny - NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations (the Minsk agreements) to delay the war they knew would eventually happen if Ukraine didn't address Russian security concerns. This period was used to train Ukraine's military by NATO members.
> Merkel: ... Thinking back to 2014, and the beginning of 2015, when Minsk II was negotiated: If we had done nothing, Putin could have caused tremendous damage to Ukraine, and those 7 years were crucial for the evolution of Ukraine. In spite of that, this terrible situation still came to occur. But back in 2008, when the NATO membership action plan discussed, my opinion (which you don't have to share, but it is my opinion) is that it would have happened even more rapidly. Back then, Ukraine was even further from being able to offer the degree of resistance it can offer today .... Secondly, I was certain that Putin would not allow this to happen. From his perspective, this would have been a declaration of war. (https://youtu.be/hiwnD00kV0w?t=2144 )
> The Kyiv Independent: Do you also believe that the negotiations in Minsk were intended to delay Russian advances in Ukraine? ... French President François Hollande: Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point. The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while ... Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity. ( https://kyivindependent.com/national/hollande-there-will-onl... )
> Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: ... what is the result of the Minsk agreement? We win 8 years to create the army. We win 8 years to restore the economy. We win 8 years to continue the reforms and move to the European Union ... ( https://youtu.be/YgpZ9mQ8p18?t=426 )
As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them. And one of the terms of the negotiations was to stop their military advance. Russia, in its arrogance, was fooled to believe that they had achieved political success and asked its army to stop advancing, and even retreat in some places in the frontline to defensive positions. This period was then used to provide intelligence to Ukraine on Russian positions and plan a counter attack on Russia, which was successful because the Russians were unprepared for the deception and the newly trained armed forces of Ukraine.
Once they recovered from it, they revised their plan and decided to retreat and create defensive stronghold on all the areas of Eastern Ukraine they planned to annex and execute all their other objectives militarily. (Western propaganda of course prematurely touted this tactical retreat by the Russians as Ukraine wining the war).
- ... it had no realistic plan B after the surprise attack failed.
Only those who buy NATO propaganda believe that because they are ignorant of Russia's military objectives in Ukraine. NATO propaganda paints it as simple "land grab" (which you seem to believe too), when it was never about that. It is about securing Russian security interests in both Ukraine and with Europe / NATO. From that perspective, Ukraine is losing the war and Russians are quite close to achieving all their political goals militarily.
- Sure. That's why we need to go beyond claims and investigate facts.
> The Ukrainian propaganda widely published by liberal media outlets portrays Russian attacks as indiscriminate and aimed at civilians. In this article, we strive to demonstrate that this is not the case ... In the early years of the military operation, Russia targeted Ukraine’s defense industry facilities ... In response, Ukraine began relocating and dispersing production to any available industrial facilities or even warehouses. This strategy was openly discussed in Ukrainian propaganda as a crucial element of resilience against Russian assaults. As Russia increased its striking capabilities, it adopted a broader approach, targeting all industrial facilities based on a straightforward principle: if a facility can be used for drone assembly, it qualifies as a legitimate military target ... In order protect ammunition from airstrikes, it is moved out of the isolated weapons depots and hidden in any available facilities. Western missiles are transported from Poland to these locations as well. The consequences of this approach are dire: an attack leads to the detonation of ammunition, gravely endangering the surrounding residential areas. On August 29, 2026, a strike on a warehouse operated by Fire Point in the village of Milaya resulted in the death of 38 civilians ... Electricity forms the backbone of any support system. Without it, production halts, communication falters, and supplying the army becomes increasingly difficult. Based on this logic, since 2022, the Russian military has systematically targeted Ukraine’s electricity generation, reducing its capacity from 50-55 GW before the war to just 12-15 GW during the winter of 2025-26 ... Attacks on Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants – which generate both electricity and heat – continue as well. The goal isn’t to freeze the residents of Kiev, but to dismantle Ukraine’s unified energy system, breaking it into isolated segments that can be dealt with individually ... Russia specifically targeted gas stations in both frontline areas and Kiev. The goal was to disrupt military logistics. Reports estimate that over 200 gas stations were destroyed nationwide during the summer months ... The AFU takes pride in how they’ve adapted civilian trucks for launching long-range drones. However, this makes any cargo truck a legitimate military target for Russia and has led to the destruction of dozens of such launch platforms, which are tracked through intelligence efforts.
- Morocco provided tanks, Cambodia sent military specialists to teach demining, Sudan provided mortar ammunition, etc.
Countries that have allied with the west, and were bullied by them to support Ukraine, have done reluctantly. Cambodia, however, helped Ukraine out of human rights concerns, and not because it sides with it:
> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs. ( https://www.nationthailand.com/international/40012970 )
> The "South-vs-North" dichotomy is artificial and mainly lives as yet another Russian propaganda trope.
No, it isn't as the Global South also doesn't support Russia in this war. Most of them are in the Non-Aligned Movement who deliberately avoid taking sides with superpowers. Ofcourse, the west doesn't like that because they think in black and white terms - "if you are not with us, you are against us".
> In the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939, ...
And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place. Rest all is one-sided western revisionist history bullshit because you now want to demonise Russia - the USSR didn't do anything different to what western superpowers did to other smaller countries when they felt threatened. USSR was preparing for another World War that it knew was inevitable. It did pre-emptively use the military against many of them when their governments refused to cooperate with it because, again, it knew it was going to be dragged into another World War - all the western superpowers knew about Hitler's ambitions but still ignored USSR's overture to form an alliance against Hitler (because they considered Germany a "natural" western ally and didn't want to alienate it).
(Frankly, I am glad that the US keeps most of Europe's military "neutered" and in check, because they are crazy enough to start another world war. We may yet see that with the Ukraine conflict if Europe is allowed to have its way ...).
> Finland was the only one that refused the demands and took up arms ...
Finland, like Ukraine today, was again propped up by western superpowers to be used in a proxy war with Russia. Luckily, the Finnish leaders understood that the west was only using them (like it is using Ukraine today) and pragmatically settled with the Russians. And they benefited from it till date, because USSR never desired to conquer Finland, just as it doesn't wish to conquer Ukraine today.
> This is why Russian "security concerns" is not a phrase anyone can take seriously
Western superpowers would obviously like to peddle that narrative because they want to conquer and breakup the country (because without Russia, they cannot fight China). Only a moron would believe that Russia has no right to be considered about its "security", or sphere of influence, and thus it is ok to ignore it. That's on track with western political arrogance - the west only remembers "Democracy" and "sovereignty" only when it is convenient for them.
> NATO members were already preparing for the proxy war with Russia by sabotaging diplomatic negotiations
The only proxy forces in this war have been the "people's militias" of the fictious and short-lived Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, which compromised of unmarked members of Russian armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control. Nothing else comes close.
> As for Russia's initial battle loses ... Russia had surrounded Kiev, and the only reason it stopped was because Zelensky and the EU superpowers offered to negotiate with them.
The assault on Kyiv failed because the airborne assault did not manage to establish a usable bridgehead that the ground forces were supposed to link up with. Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance and ran out of fuel, food and ammunition, because they had brought supplies for only a few days. After resupply efforts failed, Russian forces became sitting ducks and had to withdraw or face wipeout.
> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs.
He changed his position soon thereafter:
Prime Minister Hun Sen has reiterated that Cambodia does not support the forceful occupation of one country by another, in comments that apparently referred to the Russian-Ukraine conflict as an “invasion”. “We don’t support the invasion of one country by another. This is our absolutely firm position,” he said while presiding over the inauguration of National Road 21 connecting Kandal province to the Cambodia-Vietnam border. “This is not a small issue because it creates a bad habit for the world: the stronger nation attacking the weaker one. So, if the stronger nation attacks the weaker one, will they attack us [Cambodia]? Then who will help us? This must be clear-cut. This is why we must have a clear position,” he explained.
Good of you to mention bullying. He spoke about that too:
Cambodia was one of 141 countries to co-sponsor the draft resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on March 2 condemning Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine. Hun Sen revealed recently that there were countries that allegedly lobbied for Cambodia to abstain on the Russia-Ukraine vote, but did not state which ones.
> This is what the Russian media recently claimed - https://rt-english.com
RT is trash-tier propaganda outlet, on the same level as Breitbart and Infowars. It deserves no attention.
> And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place.
It's also prudent to mention the reason for refusal. Russia demanded the right to place troops into Poland and expected the French and the British to coerce the Polish government into accepting it, yet again under "security concerns". Poland was naturally opposed to the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil, out of fear that the troops would never leave. History proved them correct. The forces that entered Poland during WWII remained in Poland until 1993 and were instrumental in establishing and sustaining the Russian-controlled communist dictatorship.
Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to exploit the looming German-Polish war and gain an opportunity to invade Poland. The French and the British did not agree to pressure the Polish government, so Stalin struck a deal with Hitler who had no such inhibitions.
> It did pre-emptively use the military against many of them when their governments refused to cooperate with it
The governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania accepted all demands and in return they were overthrown from the very same military bases on their soil that were supposed to satisfy Russian "security concerns". National governments were replaced with communist dictatorships under Russian control, and the entire countries remained under full military occupation until 1994. During this period, Russians committed genocide against the local populations, through actions such as mass deportations to Siberian labor camps.
> USSR never desired to conquer Finland
Facts speak a different story. Immediately at the start of the war, Russians established the Finnish Democratic Republic and its government and signed a treaty with it that subordinated Finland to the USSR. Finnish DR was supposed to take the place of the legitimate Finnish government, much like Russians set up puppet governments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which "asked" to be absorbed into the USSR, to add a veneer of legitimacy to the conquest. After the invasion failed, the Finnish DR was quietly disbanded.
> Only a moron would believe that Russia has no right to be considered about its "security", or sphere of influence, and thus it is ok to ignore it.
Only morons go around yapping about "Russian security concerns" when Russia itself is the main threat to peace and security in Europe. Russia has severely violated the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, which established guiding principles for security and cooperation in Europe. Among other things, it was agreed in Helsinki that using force to violate territorial integrity and redraw European borders was unacceptable conduct for any European state.
- The only proxy forces in this war have been the "people's militias"
I partly agree with you - what you mentioned were the Ukrainian proxy backed by the Russians. The west had their own Ukrainian political leaders that they backed who also worked to divide the country. This is why I blame the Ukrainian leaders, first and foremost, for this mess - they couldn't unite their country, and allowed foreign meddling. One leader sought help from Russia, one from UK / NATO and now from US / EU to consolidate power. In the Angela Merkel interview that I have shared above, she too points this out:
> Merkel: First, Ukraine wasn't the Ukraine we know now. Politically, Ukraine was deeply divided between Yanukovych and Yushchenko, and even the reformers Tymoshenko and Yushchenko didn't like each other ...
When a nation is not united, it is easy to exploit it, and that is what the western superpowers and Russia did in Ukraine. The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly (I wouldn't call him a Russian stooge) leader. They then immediately branded all parties and leaders perceived as anti-west as "enemies" and either banned them, jailed them or exiled them. Then, after eliminating all competition, they held a "democratic election" which was hailed by the west as the "most democratic" in Ukraine's history while it created a permanent schism between the East Ukraine and West Ukraine.
Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people. He too failed, partly due to his inexperience and also because he followed the same destructive policies (guided by the west to whom he is beholden), like his predecessors that ignored Ukraine's history and culture and trying to end multiculturalism. He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war. As Putin saw Zelensky's political actions were increasingly guided by the west, and increasingly militant, and he had no interest in a rapprochement with Russia, he escalated, which finally resulted in the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
(And now West Ukraine has a militia compromised of unmarked members of western armed forces, security services, and people under their direct control, with whom Zelensky too has to contend).
- Instead of a rapid advance toward Kyiv, Russian ground forces were met by fierce Ukrainian resistance ...
I agree that the initial Ukrainian resistance was good, and completely unanticipated by the Russians. The direct intelligence provided by NATO was also very helpful to slowdown the Russian invasion. All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine. Remember that the first diplomatic negotiation took place just 4 days after the war, and one of the western pre-conditions to this was that negotiations shouldn't happen with the barrel of a gun to the face (i.e. Kiev surrounded) and required the Russians to withdraw, which the Russians partially complied with because they arrogantly and foolishly thought the negotiations would happen in good-faith and in their favour.
- Good of you to mention bullying ...
Oh, I am not defending Russia when it comes to such things. Even my own country gave in to the Russian demands to not vote in the UN resolution. (That was a cowardice on the part of the Modi government - the Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal, by international laws, and India should have upheld that principle). My point remains that western superpowers are no different from Russia or China in this, and so the west does not have any moral ground to claim superiority here.
- RT is trash-tier propaganda outlet ...
As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV. When everyone is doing propaganda, all we can do is analyse the facts based on which the propaganda is crafted. Facts are facts, and only the propaganda around it differ. Civilians are killed (collateral damage) by the actions of both sides. Fact. And both sides deliberately claim that civilians are deliberately targeted. Propaganda. I don't believe either Zelensky nor Putin is deliberately targeting civilians, as it isn't in their interest. Neither of them is an extremist or a fundamentalist like Netanyahu, for example, who is actually indulging in a genocide.
- Russia demanded the right to place troops into Poland and expected the French and the British to coerce the Polish government into accepting it ..
And was it the right call from a military perspective, to fight Hitler's army? Obviously, Yes. Everyone knew that Germany (and Hitler) wanted Russia. And there were only so many fronts from which the German army could advance towards Russia. Remember that this was not the first war Russia was fighting against an invading army, especially the Germans.
- Poland was naturally opposed to the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil, out of fear that the troops would never leave. History proved them correct.
No, history did not prove them correct. No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans. It would have disrupted the new alliance and potentially made war with the British and the French a reality.
- Stalin was simply shopping around for a way to exploit the looming German-Polish war and gain an opportunity to invade Poland.
That's all bullshit and a modern excuse. Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons. Sure, like any other superpower, USSR was also interested in expanding their Sphere of Influence, but they were just as pragmatic about it as the French or the British (i.e. they would try to do it without warfare). Every political move the USSR took during, and after, WW2 was based because of the initial hostility of the western superpowers to an alliance with it, and then because of the hostilities towards it post-WW2 (resulting in the cold war). To blame everything on the Russians, is just western hubris and propaganda. European superpowers are just as much to blame, then, as they are now for renewed hostilities with the Russians.
As Fico once said:
> We have our own experience with Munich in 1938, when the powers bound to us by treaty deceived us, betrayed us and served us up to Hitler like a roasted chicken. ( https://x.com/RobertFicoSVK/status/2101382211370893658 )
That is also a fact. But your predictable response to this would be sidestep the facts (that this was typical superpower politics) and say, "Oh no, he is a Putin / Russian stooge" (at some point, this kind of propaganda gets really tiring).
- National governments were replaced with communist dictatorships under Russian control ...
Again, you disregard west's own hostility towards USSR in taking those actions. I also find it funny how quick the west is to attack any kind of "revolution" that is against their own interest, but to quickly praise similar "revolution" whose leaders are aligned to the west - "My dictators are ok, only yours are bad!". Today, you in the west have no problem with the US invading Venezuela and violating its sovereignty, or supporting and defending a genocide by your allies in Gaza, or killing children in Iran, or fully backing and whitewashing a "revolution" in Ukraine that overthrew a democratically elected leader ... all that is ok for you. But, at the same time, you also want us to think that the only "evil" in this world is your enemy (the Russians) ... like I said, all this kind of propaganda has become tiring to us in the Global South.
It is also very clear that the western superpowers wrongly thought that Russia was weak and could be conquered and divided amongst themselves. And Ukraine was the proxy they used to test it. You westerners prove that with your cowardice in not fighting alongside the Ukrainians ... If the west wants to preach from a moral high ground, the west needs to display the very ethical and moral values that they espouse. Sadly, they don't.
- Only morons go around yapping about "Russian security concerns" when Russia itself is the main threat to peace and security in Europe. ...
You guys are like the bullies that humiliate and provoke someone weaker repeatedly. And when they one day fight back and hurt you, go crying to your mama that you are the real victim.
> it was agreed in Helsinki that using force to violate territorial integrity and redraw European borders was unacceptable conduct for any European state.
And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...
> The west was more successful here as the western backed coup managed to overthrow the democratically elected Russian friendly
There was no coup in Ukraine. Coup is commonly defined as an illegal takeover of power by a small group of people. In Ukraine, the national parliament voted to hold early elections and the next president was elected by 18 million voters soon thereafer. This does not fit anny
> Russia recognized the coup for what it was - a foreign backed coup - and so immediately annexed Crimea (to protect its own military interests).
Can't be true. The Russian military campaign medal "For the Return of Crimea" issued to the participants inscribes the start of the campaign as 20 February 2014. The public tender for manufacturing them was issued 17 December 2013. That was months before the "coup". Photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Medal_Fo...
> Zelensky was elected on a platform to unite the people /---/ He in fact exacerbated the issue by using violence against East Ukrainians, triggering a civil war.
I honestly don't know what "civil war" you are talking about. By the time Zelensky was voted into office in 2019, the fighting in Eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian and Russian forces had virtually ceased and did not restart until the full-scale invasion in February 2022.
> All that said, a major reason for Russians dropping the advance towards Kiev, and later tactically withdrawing,, was because of request for urgent negotiations by the west and Ukraine.
Sour grapes.
> As is any media outlet, funded by the government, like the BBC, NPR, DW or PressTV.
BBC, NPR and DW are not under the editorial control of their respective governments, as can be witnessed from their coverage, which is often unfavorable, especially NPR of Trump. RT has no such independence. RT's editorial decisions are taken by Alexey Gromov, the first deputy chief of staff of the Putin's administration. Unlike Trump, notice how Putin, Lavrov, et al never complain about the domestic press being unfair, because they are the press. Don't like an article? Pick a phone and the article disappears, sometimes with its author.
> Stalin's main concern was always Hitler and Germany, for historical reasons.
Stalin infamously misjudged Hitler's intentions and dismissed mounting warnings that Germany was preparing to attack the USSR, which caused catastrophic losses when Germany did eventually attack. Entire armies vanished into thin air, millions of soldiers were taken prisoner in a few months. Stalin was paralyzed by disbelief and issued a flood of nonsensical orders that made things only worse. Stalin expected the fruitful cooperation to last at least until Germany had defeated the UK. During their alliance, Russians were providing strategic products like oil in huge quantities to Germany. Cargo trains carrying grain were arriving at border stations even on the morning of the German attack.
> No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans.
There is literally a counterexample in the neighboring Lithuania. Lithuanian government accepted all demands, and Russian forces did not leave until 1994, causing enourmous amounts of suffering over 50 years of occupation. This happened all across Europe. Most of Central and Eastern Europe was covered by communist dictatorships under Russian control until the USSR collapsed in 1991, and military forces took further few years to remove, last ones left by 1994.
> And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...
The Helsinki peace process and the agreement reached there has little to do with generic anti-American rhetoric. The Helsinki Final Act is rarely mentioned by talking heads on social media, so I'm not surprised how few people have heard of it, but it is one of the foundational documents in international relations. In 1975, representatives from all European countries (except for Albania and Andorra) - east and west, north and south, and some from the middle too - assembed in Helsinki to agree on how to reduce Cold War tensions in Europe in the name of regional security and cooperation. One of the key adopted principles was that no European country may invade another country by force and declare its territory to be its own. Since 1975, Russia has been the only country to violate this principle by declaring four Ukrainian regions integral parts of the Russian Federation.
It is such a blatant violation of established norms that even some of Russia's closest allies like Belarus have not recognized it.
Well, yes, the deal was supposed un-block its own food and fertilizer exports, but they were still sanctioned. It was idiotic to agree to that deal without first getting the sanctions removed. The UN "committed to help facilitate and remove obstacles to unimpeded global exports of Russian food and fertilizers" - something which never materialized.
Completely irrelevant as well as ridiculous. Russia is 100% responsible for any ships being sunk in the Black Sea. Making silly demands when things don’t work out the way they hoped does not shift the blame in any way whatsoever.
Russia can stop the war (and thus sanctions) whenever they choose to. Ukraine does not have that option.
How is it "irrelevant" when there was a deal struck but its terms were violated ? Are all Western deals this way ? No wonder Minsk broke down. How is Russia 100% responsible for any ships being sunk in the Black Sea when Ukraine has sunk >100 vessels in the black sea? Try and separate basic logic from partisan emotion please.
First, this thread is about refuting GPs claim about how this is in response to Ukraine attacking Russian vessels first, which is obviously bullshit.
Second, EU and US were not signatories to any deal between Russia and Ukraine, so any sanction relief was never on the table as part of the grain deal. Russia may have asked for it, but it was not offered or implied in any way by anybody. And yes, this is typically how deals work everywhere.
Third, any ship that Ukraine sinks is 100% on Russia because they’re the reason any ships need to be sunk in the first place. Again, Russia could stop the war today and no further violence would be necessary.
Ukraine started attacks against Russian shipping in the Sea of Azov and Black Sea on 6th July 2026, as part of the 40 days day sinking over 100 commercial ships.
Who cares? Russia's been targeting Ukrainian vessels and shipping infrastructure since 2022, as we've established above. Just because Ukraine has chosen to respond in kind (or at a larger scale more recently) is irrelevant, the responsibility lies squarely with Russia. You should probably consume less Russian propaganda.
We had an incredible run with Zamund, RARBG and Arena. I’m still salty because I spent 15 years building up my ratio by repurposing old PCs as seed boxes even when I was a kid living with my parents. Too bad our govt is focused on piracy instead of the plethora of other cybercrimes that Bulgarians fall victim to on the daily.
> But far from demanding more electricity personal computers have become more efficient with laptops mostly replacing large standalone boxes, and software improvements reducing waste.
If only it was true, I reckon we’re using multiple-orders of magnitude more computational per $ of business objectives simply because of the crazy abstractions. For example, I know of multiple small HFT firms that are crypto market makers with their trading bots in Python. Many banks in my country have excel macros on top of SQL extensions on top of COBOL. We’ve not reduced waste in software but rather quite the opposite.
I don’t think this is super relevant to the articles point but I think it’s an under discussed topic.
Excel has already added a =COPILOT() function. Imagine the waste of all those formulas that probably amount to some basic mathematical formula that could be run on a 386.
It’s quite upsetting that if you want a modern car so that you utilise the newest advances in safety, you have to consent to constant tracking, enshitification, subscription services, etc. It would be really cool if you could get something like a ‘67 impala that doesn’t make ‘67 emissions and has actual seatbelts and airbags…
It's really a regulatory problem, where I live my 2025 toyota has a big display saying "the car is unable to send or receive any data if you don't press press accept", pressing decline gives the car that out of cell range symbol. Doesen't prevent targeted surveillance nor mass government surveillance, but those are more about regulations too.
Recent Toyotas can have the DCM physically bypassed fairly easily by unplugging it and/or unplugging a fuse. You lose the front passenger speaker and bluetooth microphone, but those can be re-enabled with a bypass cable or manually jumpering them and putting in an 8v supply IC for the mic.
$0 in rewards for RCE on the Windows build servers is crazy. I understand he didn’t find an actual zero-day, only a configuration issue, but still. Imagine the global havoc you can cause if you can pollute the build environment with backdoored DLLs…
I was a windows build engineer at Microsoft. I am unfamiliar with this specific UI for managing build tools (I think it may have been added after I left), however I would be surprised if it was actually RCE-capable.
I notice that it requires the tool to be pulled from NuGet. While it looks like you could enter any package and NuGet source, I would be very surprised if there wasn’t a locked down whitelist of allowed sources (limited to internal Microsoft NuGet feeds).
Locking down NuGet packages was one of the primary things we (the Windows Engineering System team) were heavily focusing on when I left years ago. We were explicitly prevented from using public NuGet packages at all. We had to repackage them and upload them to the internal source to be used.
I’m ashamed to admit we have a discord channel for each project and we dump secrets there with access control to the channels based on who works on the project.
Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README.
While Spotify is obviously an immoral company, you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand. They are a business and they don’t owe that service to you on principle.
If you don’t like them as a company, there’s way to purchase the music directly (remember how we all used the iTunes Store back in the day) and there are other streaming services whose morals you might find more acceptable.
To be clear, I’m not making some grand “piracy is evil” argument, but I’m saying that to publish software enabling piracy with the justification that a business’ free service is not good enough value for you is a bit out there.
>you, the person reading this, are not entitled to free 24/7 cloud-streamed music on demand.
I took it anyway. I have a few terabytes of flac that I stream through Plex when I feel like it. I dare anyone to stop me. Pay hard drive manufacturers, not IP companies.
Neither is Spotify owed anything from you. They aren't owed money, unless you agreed to pay them money (actually agreed, not clickwrap). They aren't owed ad views, because clickwrap agreements to watch ads generally don't actually have any legal force. And if they think they do, let them sue you and find out. You don't owe them advance compliance according to what would benefit them the most, but they benefit greatly from you thinking you do.
This applies to a lot of things, not Spotify in particular.
> Kernel level packet filtering to avoid Spotify ads is about the same level of mental gymnastics as the GPT-generated “we’re not pirates” argument in their README.
This jumble of sentences stuck out to me as logically incoherent, but not necessarily LLM-generated. I guess I need to update my mental model a bit to account for more things being being LLM-generated.
reply