Miles Smith IV
@IVMiles
A whole generation of people dont understand why this photo was so significant, and it shows...
8:42 PM · Apr 6, 2025

Samaritan Prime
@SamaritanPrime
·
3h
Context: that’s Boris Yeltsin, and he poked his head into a random supermarket in America while on a visit. Dude could not compute that the shelves were full. Soviet Russia didn’t have that.

Demetri D Williams
@DemetriDeshone
·
32m
This was before the fall of USSR and before he was President. He went from a communist to a capitalist because of this.

Woodrow Call
@WoodrowCall1
·
2h
iirc this was in Houston. He was there touring NASA, I believe. At first he assumed it was fake, that they had stocked it for his visit to make it look like the US was prosperous, cuz that's what the Soviet Union would do. He had to be convinced this was normal life here.

Russia does not provide medical assistance at the front to its own soldiers. So, if you get seriously wounded, too bad for you and your family.

I've seen drone videos of such Russian men writhing on the ground in filthy trenches littered with dead bodies. And they end up killing themselves with a rifle or grenade rather than die slowly alone in agony.

The thinking in news media is often that graphically detailed news coverage of such conflicts is too gruesome for viewers or readers back home. Often, they don't even show or describe dead bodies.

We should have provocative discussions about such unofficial censorship that sanitizes the horrors of war. Because that reduces the awful ongoing events basically to an imaginary game far away. Who's going to oppose war — or support it, for that matter — if they never see how bad it really is? I ran into some of this editorial opposition at the end of the Vietnam War. //

While Russian forces are killing Ukrainian men in combat at the front lines (and thousands of civilians in indiscriminate artillery, bombing, and missile attacks on cities), other Russians are kidnapping children from Ukrainian homes behind the front lines. They are simply seizing them from their families — I call that kidnapping — and shipping them off to Russia, never to be seen again.

There, they are punished if they don't speak Russian. The goal is to erase from the minds of these Ukrainian youngsters the national identity that Putin maintains does not exist. Hundreds of thousands of children stolen from their families.

anon-maty
an hour ago
Culturally, Russia and Russians are much more akin to Europeans than Asians. The royal families of all of old Europe were intermarried. Russians can arguably be said to have a penchant for strong rulers, sometimes to their detriment, see Stalin, Josef.
Putin is one as well. He and Russia may not be our friends. Yet. But they are not the enemy.
The enemy are the globalists. The EU. The UN. The WHO. The World Bank. Every central bank in the world.
These are the enemies of people everywhere.
Perpetual war.
Perpetual debt.
Perpetual suffering, poverty and death.
There are two teams. But they are not liberal (modern sense of the word) and conservative.
They are free and slave.
Think about who wants 15 minute cities. Think about who wants you disarmed.
Think about who wants your speech censored or prohibited altogether.
Think about who wants to erase family, God, country and tradition.
If you do you'll realize it isn't the big bad Russians. It's the financiers and governments dependent upon them, puppets on strings.

EU member states bought €21.9bn (£18.1bn) of Russian oil and gas in the third year of the war, according to estimates from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), despite the efforts under way to kick the continent’s addiction to the fuels that fund Vladimir Putin’s war chest.

The amount is one-sixth greater than the €18.7bn the EU allocated to Ukraine in financial aid in 2024, according to a tracker from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

The basic gist of Trump's remarks was this: The U.S. wants to broker peace, but Zelensky wants to keep fighting with assistance from the U.S.

High-ranking White House officials confirmed to CBS News that President Trump is unwilling to talk to Zelensky at this point because of Zelensky's disinterest in peace. //

High-level Trump sources tell me the White House is now uncertain if they can get the Russians and Ukrainians to stop fighting because this episode with @ZelenskyyUa raised questions about whether he can move forward toward a peace deal. It also raises questions about whether US will pause aid to Ukraine. But Trump is NOT seeking regime change in Ukraine. No discussions about who in Ukraine might be a better leader than Zelenskyy.

Ukrainian officials have reached out this afternoon to senior White House officials desperate to get the deal back on track. But that will not happen today, I'm told. Trump is unwilling to talk to Zelenskyy further today.

When Rubio and Waltz went into the Roosevelt Room to ask Zelenskyy to leave, Rubio made it clear that any further engagements today would be counterproductive. Waltz told Zelenskyy he had made a tremendous mistake, and it was a grave disservice to Ukraine and to Americans, both.

No phone calls between Trump and Putin have been scheduled. But multiple European officials have called top Trump officials since Zelenskyy left asking how the minerals deal can be salvaged.

Trump fully intended to sign the minerals deal today. Two official binders were prepared -- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his Ukrainian counterpart and the two presidents were going to sit at a conference table in the East Room and then trumpet their success at podiums.

But there were suspicions before Zelenskyy arrived today that it might fall apart. Because the Trump admin had been pushing for weeks for a minerals deal signing at the ministerial level, and Ukraine had refused. Zelenskyy wanted security guarantees.

US officials thought negotiations would be much harder with Putin so today have been been in disbelief that it has been Zelenskyy who has been more difficult, making maximalist demands, sources told me. //

Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
Follow
Zelenskyy declares that he won't negotiate an end to the war without security guarantees from the United States -- And then admits that he doesn't have enough weapons to push Russia out of Ukraine -- And then demands more money from the U.S.

Last edited
11:56 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

RedDog_FLA
an hour ago
Zelesky forgot the he's dealing with the Producer of the Apprentice.

Zelensky thought he could manage an on-camera negotiation with the dealmaker. 🤔

He might not get another chance... it's possible he has been FIRED.

Slappy
an hour ago edited
The way Zelenskyy bombed this meeting publically like that, I think he isn't stupid, he did it because he wanted to torpedo any ceasefire deal and he's unwilling to settle for peace. The Europeans are all that's left, so maybe he thinks that's who he played up to here. I wish them and Ukraine luck, because blowing up what's left of the relationship with the U.S. is one hell of a risky move.

Sean Davisb@seanmdav
·
Trump doesn’t bad mouth anyone who comes to the negotiating table in good faith. Ever. It’s a near-cardinal rule of negotiations for him, and a major reason he’s been such a successful dealmaker. 

If you refuse to negotiate, he will trash you. If you lie or negotiate in bad faith, he will trash you. He has zero interest in allowing empty moralizing to get in the way of a deal that he wants.  

He has done this his entire career, in business and in politics, and it’s fascinating to me how many people who think of themselves as smart and savvy are incapable of seeing or understanding this dynamic.

Christian Datoc @TocRadio
TRUMP: "You want me to say really terrible things about Putin and then say, 'hi, Vladimir. How are we doing on the deal?' It doesn't work that way. I'm not aligned with anybody. I'm aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world."
8:05 PM · Feb 28, 2025. //

The key here isn't just that Trump is holding the cards and that Zelensky needs him — not the other way around — it's that Trump is negotiating from a fortified position of "America first." Everything at the table is subject to that one point, and if anything drifts away from that, then Trump pushes back and pushes back until he's all the way gone from the table.

Zelensky acted like a petulant child who showed no respect to the country that had given him the money for his war while trying to secure more, and Trump saw no value, not in the war, and not in Zelensky's disrespect. As such, there was no deal. Moreover, Zelensky attempted to pressure Trump into capitulation through our own media, which was a costly mistake. Trump is not beholden to the American media as other leaders are.

But Zelensky's error came from a habit he never should have never been allowed to develop. The Democrats — and too many Republicans — taught Zelensky that he was in charge. They caved to him constantly because the last thing they wanted was for our own media, who fawn and worship the ground Zelensky walks on, to turn on them. That would result in massive blowback from Democrat supporters, including their donors. //

Ultimately, the Democrat at the negotiating table asks, "what's expedient for me politically right now?" When the question that they should be asking themselves — and Trump clearly understands — is "how does this put America and Americans in the best position possible?"

The answer is sometimes not to make a deal at all. It's not sexy to come back and say negotiations fell apart, especially to a bloodthirsty media who makes everything sound like every failed deal moves us closer to doomsday, but again, Trump isn't concerned with the media, he's concerned with America.

And Democrats just can't seem to wrap their heads around that. //

TexasVeteran
3 hours ago edited
"The answer is sometimes not to make a deal at all."

Trump is channeling his inner Ronnie! Remember when Reagan walked away from a nuke deal with Gorbachev in Iceland? It lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union!🤔. //

anon-m0b0
2 hours ago
The war with Putin is a gigantic money-laundering operation that Zelensky and Democrats (and some Republicans) are getting rich from. Trump knows this. He wants to end the war and end the corruption. Zelensky is not ready for peace because a lot of people are getting rich. The mineral rights are some repayment to U.S. taxpayers for tax dollars sitting in oligarchs bank accounts.

Zelensky is counting on the U.S. press to do his dirty work to Trump. He doesn't realize Trump doesn't care.

Zelensky will be back at the table when the money is gone. He made his own bargaining position worse and he still doesn't realize yet.

I don't think talking means that you're weak. I think talking is a tactic in order to get to a goal [...] We need to be able to have these conversations with the Russians.

[...]

Again, I go back to the fact that we had it perfect in terms of peace. We were handed a war, and now we're being criticized of, "well how do you dig us out of a war, and you're not doing it fast enough and you're not doing it fair enough." So we're a little frustrated. //

We articulate very clearly under Donald Trump: We don't do regime change. We are going to deal with the countries that are in front of us. And our criteria is, not how do we make that country better, how do we make America better, stronger, more prosperous for the people here. //

Burns' final question was whether Grenell had plans to run for California Governor in 2026. The audience cheered in approval.

Honestly, it's not in my plans unless Kamala Harris runs for governor. If Kamala runs... If Kamala runs...

You're jumping in? Burns interjected.

I mean, here's the thing: we already know who she is. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to define who Kamala Harris is. If she's going to run, a Republican is going to win and I may not be able to resist trying to run against her.

Niall Ferguson @nfergus
Replying to @JDVance
Well, thank God also for free and open debate.
Having visited Ukraine every year but one since 2011, I think I have an informed and realistic view.
I repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for its failure to deter Putin in 2021 and failure to end the war while Ukraine…
3:20 PM · Feb 21, 2025

JD Vance @JDVance
·
In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.

Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.

3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.
The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.
4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it. //

OrneryCoot
3 hours ago
The fact that the VP of the United States is willing (and extremely capable) of having detailed policy discussions with a British historian concerning an extremely volatile, sensitive, and relevant situation on X/Twitter is absolutely fantastic. They are bypassing entirely the legacy media and putting it all out there for everyone to see. We see everything unvarnished and without the filter and bias of the legacy media "journalists", and can comment on it in real time. THIS is what healthy, productive, free societies have yearned for since probably Athenian democratic debates over 2,000 years ago. Regardless of what side you are on, we should be in the balconies or right at the front of the stage cheering this on for all we're worth. The only losers here are those who want to restrict or alter the flow of information for their own selfish ends, like corrupt bureaucrats, politicians, freaking coup leaders, and the legacy media. It is a great time to be alive! //

Fight On
2 hours ago edited
To all the GOP neocons:
1) define “victory”
2) describe the path to “victory”
3) what’s your plan? be specific, accountable, realistic. time bound
4) math. Math wins in a war of attrition: Ukraine troops < Russian troops. It’s a numbers game, reality.
5) the GDP of Europe is huge compared to Russia. Europe can afford to fund and defend Europe, Ukraine from Russia. Without US.
6) Russia’s military has proven to be third rate -.not the threat you make it out to be
7) Europe is mooching off the American taxpayer for their defense. THIS MUST STOP!
8) NATO has consistently broken their promises to limit the advance of NATO eastward.
9) Biden/Harris regime threatened to add Ukraine to NATO - Russia’s red line
10) Neocon rhetoric constantly provokes Russia with regime change.
11) USA IS BROKE! EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON UKRAINE IS BORROWED ON A CREDIT CARD!! AMERICA FIRST!!!!!

Niall Ferguson @nfergus
·
"This will not stand. This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait."--George H.W. Bush on August 5, 1990. Full quote from Jon Meacham's biography. Future history students will be asked why this stopped being the reaction of a Republican president to the invasion of a… Show more
7:43 AM · Feb 20, 2025

JD Vance @JDVance
·
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts.

And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is currently flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.
1:39 PM · Feb 20, 2025//

People cheered Vance's statement.

David Limbaugh called it "one for the ages."

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said:

Amen. Thank goodness we have a President and Vice President who put America first and acknowledged what has always been the reality in Ukraine. We should pursue a peaceful and realistic outcome, not death, debt, and war.

White House reporter Charlie Spiering said Ferguson "laments the loss of Republican neocons like George H.W. Bush." //

What Ferguson said he took issue with was he thought they were conceding too much off the bat, based on what he was reading, including taking NATO membership off the table, conceding territory, as well as a peacekeeping force that could include China.

I earnestly hope that the Trump administration can negotiate an end to this war. But if we end up with a peace that dooms Ukraine first to partition and then to some future invasion, it will be a sorry outcome. To repeat, I agreed with most of your criticisms of Europe at Munich. I would add that the Europeans have talked for “strategic autonomy” for too long without making a serious attempt to achieve it.

But you and President Trump campaigned last year with a slogan that dates back even further than George H.W. Bush’s words that I quoted. That phrase was “peace through strength.”

I would note a few things. Ferguson is assessing things based in part on what he is reading. He's not aware of what's going on in the private discussions.

Further, I think Trump has already made his "peace through strength" clear.

stickdude90
9 hours ago
Remind me again why we spend so much blood and treasure to protect these blowhards...

jri500 anon-fv7m
6 hours ago
Bill Clinton and his buddy, Bernard Schwartz (LORAL Space) GAVE China our ballistic missile gyroscope guidance technology. Just gave it to them because liberals couldn't stand the fact that the US was the world's lone super power at the time. China's missiles couldn't reach orbit. Clinton moved the gyro technology from Defense to the Commerce department, and put a CIA satellite on a Chinese rocket. And when that rocket crashed, the Chi Coms sifted the wreckage and reverse engineered our gyros. When Clinton took office, China had zero (0) nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US mainland. When he left office, they had 20. //

Dieter Schultz stickdude90
6 hours ago edited
Remind me again why we spend so much blood and treasure to protect these blowhards...
I think you might be looking at the US being forward deployed and allied with nations around the world... through the wrong lens.

Yes we're spending money stationing forces around the world and, yes, some... maybe a lot of these countries... don't appreciate or deserve our protection but... look at it from the point of view of avoided costs.

But, we can't understand avoided costs unless we consider what isolationism might really cost us in the bigger scheme of things.

We were, mostly, isolationists between 1910 and 1940... not spending money with alliances and forward deploying our forces. Because of that the bad guys in the world didn't believe we'd respond as they gobbled up other countries. What they did believe, and what Churchill said so elegantly in some of his writing, was that if the US allowed its natural allies to fall, the position that the US would be in, strategically, would be difficult in the extreme.

So we stayed out of the areas but, when we were finally forced to act the costs in treasure and lives of our youth was great... far, far greater than they would have been if the Germans and Japanese really believed we would fight to stop them.

Since the end of WWII we've made a lot of mistakes and many of those mistakes have cost us 10s of thousands of our youth and untold treasures but, even with Russia's aggressive moves in the world, we haven't had a repeat of the carnage, loss of life, and expenditures of the country's treasures.

But, we should ask ourselves, even if we've helped protect people that didn't seem to appreciate and value our sacrifice, if, like happened to us leading up to WWI and WWII, would we have likely gotten sucked into another one of the continent's or world's battles and cost ourselves 10 or 100 times the loss of carnage, loss of life, and expenditures of our treasure anyway?

I see the discussions about forward deploying our forces around the world much like the Chesterton's Fence and we should ask ourselves, why that fence was needed in the first place?

Many in this country just want to tear down that fence but, as Chesterton might see it: "If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

Mrs. deWinter
6 hours ago
One thing that struck me reading Trump's statement here in this article is how much information President Trump gives the public about his phone call with Putin. The details, the ideas, the goals, the reasons, the strength. When Biden made calls, we barely knew about them, and there were no details given. The transparency of this new administration is so welcoming and a relief. We know who is in charge and we know what they are doing.

In the ever-evolving landscape of energy logistics, Russia is exploring an unconventional approach that could redefine the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Imagine this: massive nuclear-powered submarines quietly carrying LNG beneath the icy waters of the Arctic, bypassing traditional shipping routes and geopolitical hurdles. This ambitious idea, proposed by Russian experts, might seem like something out of a science fiction novel, but it reflects a bold strategy to navigate a challenging economic and political environment. //

The proposed submarine model would weigh a staggering 180,000 tons and boast a draft of under 14 meters, making it capable of navigating areas that conventional LNG carriers cannot. The ability to traverse beneath the Arctic’s frozen expanse presents a tantalizing opportunity to shorten shipping times and bypass traditional chokepoints. //

The design isn’t just impressive—it’s revolutionary. Equipped with three Rhythm-200 nuclear reactors, the submarine would rely on 30 MW electric propellers, allowing it to reach speeds of 17 knots (about 31.5 km/h). At 360 meters long and 70 meters wide, the vessel’s size rivals that of the world’s largest oil tankers. More importantly, its operational capabilities would cut transit times between Arctic gas fields and Asian markets from 20 days to just 12.

This innovation isn’t solely about speed. These nuclear-powered giants could safely operate year-round, including during the harsh Arctic winter months when sea ice renders many traditional shipping lanes impassable. //

Russia’s largest LNG producer, Novatek, recently announced plans to acquire 16 ice-class LNG carriers. Yet sanctions and technological barriers have stymied progress, highlighting the difficulties of expanding Arctic shipping routes. By turning to nuclear-powered submarines, Russia hopes to sidestep these roadblocks while reinforcing its sovereignty over the Arctic.

Christmas Day, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight JS-8243 crashed while attempting an emergency landing at Aqtau Airport in Aktau, Kazakhstan. There were 67 passengers and crew aboard; at least 38 died in the crash, and the body count may climb as hospitalized passengers succumb to their injuries. Russian aviation authorities blamed the loss on a massive bird strike, but the intact tail section bore the tell-tale marks of a hit by a missile fired from an SA-22 Greyhound (Russian name: Pantsir) surface-to-air missile system. Read the background in my post: Azerbaijan Airline Crash Was Most Likely Caused by a Russian Missile.

Despite warnings from the Kremlin not to speculate on the cause of the crash, Azerbaijani officials have told the media Flight JS-8243 was brought down by a Russian missile. //

It was the drone attack, not fog, that prevented JS-8243 from landing.

Near Grozny, the plane was hit by a Russian missile. The plane asked to divert to airports at Makhachkala or Mineralnye Vody, but permission was denied, and it was told to land at Aqtau Airport. Essentially, it was forbidden to land in Russian territory. As the plane left the Grozny area, it was subjected to GPS jamming and other electronic warfare effects. "According to data, the plane’s GPS navigation systems were jammed throughout the flight path above the sea."

By now, the plane had lost steering, and the pilot and co-pilot were managing direction and altitude by using engine power. This is what the flight looked like with altitude changes. //

By any standard, the flight crew on JS-8243 were heroic. By keeping the fatally damaged aircraft in the air and accomplishing a controlled crash near the Aqtau Airport, they saved nearly half the people on board. //

flyovercountry
11 hours ago
It needs to be said over and over, the reason why the Russians denied landing anywhere except Kazakhstan is the hope the airplane, and evidence, would be at the bottom of the Caspian Sea.

The Russian ship Ursa Major sank in the western Mediterranean Tuesday after a series of explosions just above the waterline, and the Russians are blaming "terrorism." The 16,000-ton freighter was 12 days into a 42-day voyage from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok carrying two desperately needed cargo cranes for that port, two 45-ton hatches for a Project 10510 icebreaker that was under construction when three engine room explosions rocked it. Two of the 16-man crew were reported missing and presumed dead. The ship was under US sanctions authorized by Executive Order 14024, imposed in August 2022, for activities related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. //

Terrorism would be code for a Ukrainian attack.

In my view, the description of the incident does not match the video, so it is possible the description was manufactured out of whole cloth or based on bad information from the crew. We'll never have imagery of the alleged holes in the ship's hull. The fact that the Ukrainians haven't boasted about the operation makes me skeptical of their involvement. All that is certain is that Russia lost one of its largest freighters carrying critical cargo for operations in Vladivostok. //

Min Headroom
9 hours ago edited
I have no trouble believing that the Russians managed to sink their own ship, although if the hole(s) really are inward facing this seems unlikely.

A 19” inward facing hole above the water line might suggest some sort of drone strike, but if UKR isn’t crowing about it that seems unlikely too.

But this gets me to the thing I don’t understand: how does a hole above the water line sink a ship in very little time?

So what I’d go to is a flawed narrative, which Russians excel at, and no real information besides the ship is sunk, valuable cargo and all. //

Louise1 Min Headroom
3 hours ago
There might also be holes on the port side, which weren't visible because they were below the water line.

Finnish commandos boarded and seized an oil tanker Thursday that is believed to have temporarily disabled the Estlink-2 power line connecting Finland and Estonia. The vessel in question, the Cook Islands-registered Eagle S, was traveling from St. Petersburg to Port Said, Egypt. The Eagle S is thought to be part of Russia's "shadow fleet" that smuggles Russian crude oil to market. //

This is the fourth time power or telecom cables crossing the Baltic have been damaged by deliberate actions. In October 2023, a Chinese container ship damaged a gas pipeline and two telecom cables between Finland and Estonia by dragging an anchor across them; see Chinese Container Ship Suspected of Deliberately Damaging Estonia-Finland Gas Pipeline. In November 2024, a Chinese ship disabled a 745-mile cable linking Germany and Finland and a 135-mile cable linking Lithuania and the Swedish island of Gotland, again by dragging an anchor across them. In this case, the Danish Navy detained the ship but it doesn't appear to be in any danger of consequences: see Denmark Detains Chinese Ship Suspected in Cable Cutting Incident. Authorities from Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Denmark were finally allowed to board the vessel after a month-long standoff, but they were not allowed to investigate. They are only allowed to observe the Chinese investigation. This goes to my point yesterday as to why we must reach some sort of agreement with Denmark on Greenland because the Chinese own too much of Denmark's economy and, I believe, government to be relied upon to keep China from controlling that vital Arctic region; see Trump Trolls Canada, Denmark, and Panama for Christmas but Behind the Fun He Makes Serious Points. //

In addition to the AIS data showing Eagle S making very curious maneuvers over Estlink-2 and the absence of one of its anchors, the documentary evidence has the profile of an oil smuggler. //

The obvious collaboration of Russian-controlled and Chinese-registered vessels to damage the telecom and power grid running beneath the Baltic Sea threatens NATO and the EU. NATO must take this hybrid war being waged underwater seriously and develop equally serious strategies for combatting it. What can't be tolerated is China stepping in to block investigations and legal actions by affected countries. //

Mildred's Oldest Son
6 hours ago
As the article says, all of these undersea pipelines/cables/internet connections are well charted. The Russian/Chicom/Iranian/whoever, et al are testing the responses to cutting these important, international connections. So far, the west is on the defensive.

In the early days of Russia's war on Ukraine, President Joe Biden boldly declared he was ready to seize "ill-begotten gains" of the region's oligarchs.

But in the years before Moscow twice invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from such oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals that still haunt America today.

GALTean
5 months ago
russians threaten with nukes??? Must be a day ending in Y...seriously how many of their nukes would even launch and go bang WHEN they are supposed to and not immediately or not at all? After seeing Ivantech in action in Ukraine and my time in the cold war going up against the soviet crap...I would say that most may be painted telephone poles.

streiff GALTean
5 months ago
the last Russian nuke test was 1990. So there's 30 years of Russian maintenance and quality control at work on those warheads.

Dieter Schultz streiff
5 months ago
I've noted this before...

There's been some discussion here and elsewhere that Russia's nuclear arsenal and delivery vehicles are largely past their useful designed lifespan. One news site suggested that Russia ended the inspection of their nuclear arsenal four or five years ago, in large part, because they didn't want western countries to discover the sorry state of their arsenal.

Laocoön of Troy streiff
5 months ago edited
You know...it just occurs to me that Russia could put to rest any doubts about their nukes by doing an above-the-ground public nuke test at their Semipalatinsk Test Site. Of course, suitably observed and recorded by their usual Western media allies. It would exponentially increase their leverage in terms of their threats. But so far Putin hasn't gone there. Why?

streiff Laocoön of Troy
5 months ago
for the same reason the USSR didn't invade Western Europe, they know how f***ed they are and we have too many centers of influence with a financial/power stake in making the threat larger than it is.

The obvious question was, who did it? Four suspects emerged: the United States, Ukraine, an undetermined party probably involving Poland, and Russia. But, as stated in Putin’s PR Machine Throws up Smoke as the Nord Stream Pipeline Explosion Investigation Begins, my personal view is that Russia was the most likely culprit.

1. The pipelines were not producing income; they were costing money to operate.
2. The war forced Nord Stream customers to find other sources, and it was unlikely that Nord Stream would operate again.
3. It made it clear to Germany what the price was for helping Ukraine.
4. It avoided breach of contract financial penalties that would hit Gazprom if Germany desired to re-open the pipeline, and Russia refused.
5. The repair cost of the pipelines was insured.
6. Breaching the pipelines at the deepest part means that the shortest area would be flooded, and the damage would be the cheapest to repair.
   In my view, the bonus was that the explosions took place in Scandinavian fishing grounds, and the first explosion was in the vicinity of a new Norway-Poland pipeline which gave it a “nice pipeline you’ve got there, it’d be a shame if anything happened to it” flavor.

Two days after the Cuban foreign ministry claimed that the island's regime discovered a human trafficking ring responsible for impressing Cubans into military service under Russian command in Ukraine, The Intercept posted excerpts from documents hacked from an email account belonging to a Russian military officer.