Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The problem is, you more or less have to actually be in the black sea. And these days, no one is getting into the black sea because the bosphorus is closed to naval vessels.I agree to a point.
Once again...there are those nukes you have to consider. It just complicates things...exponentially. If it wasn't for their nuclear arsenal NATO forces would have obliterated the Russians weeks ago...
A global food crisis and the unrest/death that'd entail may push us to that point of direct confrontation and quite frankly that's a proposition I'd rather not contemplate.
Doesn't matter to me as long as my state benefits its all good.Doesn't look like Kim is the only one.
Biden waiving ethanol rule in bid to lower gasoline prices
President Joe Biden is visiting corn-rich Iowa on Tuesday to announce he’ll suspend a federal rule preventing the sale of higher ethanol blend gasoline this summer as his administration tries to tamp down prices at the pump that have spiked during Russia’s war with Ukraine.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/biden-waiving-ethanol-rule-in-bid-to-lower-gasoline-prices.html
I don't follow the logic of "you need to compromise to a genocidal country who invaded your country and looted and murdered and raped and destroyed civilian infrastructure because their continued actions blockading your sovereign land may produce world hunger. Stop defending yourselves so hard". Should be actually the exact opposite on pressure being placed on Russia by the entire world to stop their illegal blockade.I don't think the majority of folks just how bad this could be...
Ramifications of Putins invasion are going to felt world wide...
Russia's invasion of Ukraine could soon cause a global food crisis that may last for years, the UN has warned.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the war had worsened food insecurity in poorer nations due to rising prices.
Some countries could face long-term famines if Ukraine's exports are not restored to pre-war levels, he added.
The conflict has cut-off supplies from Ukraine's ports, which once exported vast amounts of cooking oil as well as cereals such as maize and wheat.
This has reduced the global supply and caused the price of alternatives to soar. Global food prices are almost 30% higher than the same time last year, according to the UN.
Speaking in New York on Wednesday, Mr Guterres said the conflict - combined with the effects of climate change and the pandemic - "threatens to tip tens of millions of people over the edge into food insecurity followed by malnutrition, mass hunger and famine".
Might be the leverage point Putin uses to get Ukraine to come to the table....so he'll try to hang on to what they have until food shortages really hit home. There will probably be a lot of behind the scenes pressure on Ukraine to compromise...
Ukraine invasion could cause global food crisis, UN warns
UN chief Antonio Guterres warns that developing countries face disaster due to rising prices.www.bbc.com
I think a huge part of this besides the obvious is also the pro Russian citizens within have likely shrunk profoundly.
Sounds like it failed to make orbit doesn't it-surprising since their manned launches have a good record.
I think they are fairly accurate and allign to reports by Britain they have lost over a 1/3 of their force.I have a hard time believing those casualty figures,,,,if true the Russians are past the point of collapse and I'd think we'd see more significant Ukrainian gains.
Not saying they aren't true....just have a hard time believing they're accurate.
This seems like wishful thinking that is ignoring the reality:Oil and gas embargo may substantially affect Russia’s ability to fund #UkraineWar, since the Russian budget is dependent on energy exports. In 2021, Russia earned $253,2 billion for energy supplies, while Russia’s military budget amounted to €62,5 billion 2/13
I agree but the reality is if this gets as bad as I think it will, and is predicted.....and Russia remains obstinate...Ukraine will be pressured to compromise and come to the table. I'm not saying that's necessarily correct...I just think that's where it's heading.I don't follow the logic of "you need to compromise to a genocidal country who invaded your country and looted and murdered and raped and destroyed civilian infrastructure because their continued actions blockading your sovereign land may produce world hunger. Stop defending yourselves so hard". Should be actually the exact opposite on pressure being placed on Russia by the entire world to stop their illegal blockade.
Well Ukraine should be able to start making significant gains then because those are catastrophic casualty figures.I think they are fairly accurate and allign to reports by Britain they have lost over a 1/3 of their force.
Looking for his daily argument, Joe’s consistency never fails...Why not?
They attacked our democracy. They attacked Ukraine.
Pay up, folks.
All that does is remove one more swimmer from the shallow end of the Russky gene pool.
All the intelligence says they will, in fact the intelligence even says they're likely going to take back all the land prior to 2014. That said, it's going to take a while as it's really difficult to root someone out of entrenched areas without massive air power. Even then, it's hard to fight in urban areas, especially those of yours where your own civilians are being used as shields for the invaders. You can't just blindly bomb the city (Unless you're Russia and don't care) so you're going to have to slowly push them back and just keep taking out what you can in ancillary battles until their numbers and resolve do completely dwindle.Well Ukraine should be able to start making significant gains then because those are catastrophic casualty figures.
I agree with this assessment.All the intelligence says they will, in fact the intelligence even says they're likely going to take back all the land prior to 2014. That said, it's going to take a while as it's really difficult to root someone out of entrenched areas without massive air power. Even then, it's hard to fight in urban areas, especially those of yours where your own civilians are being used as shields for the invaders. You can't just blindly bomb the city (Unless you're Russia and don't care) so you're going to have to slowly push them back and just keep taking out what you can in ancillary battles until their numbers and resolve do completely dwindle.
Russia has stopped trying to move forward and put themselves into dangerous positions with unprotected supply lines easily destroyed. Now they're just trying to sit back and entrench themselves into the areas they've taken. That's going to be much easier to sustain even with dwindling resources. They still have enough to hold land, at least for a while. Their ability to move forward is done, but holding onto land I think they can do for at least a few more months.
He has f$&k you money. That's all. Nothing wrong with using it. I do question why he would declare he's voting republican, that'll cost him more than anything. You're a perfect example. Had he not done that, there would be no reason to question his sanity.This is true, although Musk's behavior over the last couple of years has been erratic at best. I seriously am concerned for his mental health because he has shown all of the signs of someone who is significantly unbalanced.
Leopard 2's are quality tanks....germans can make some really good armored vehicles."Here is a movie from Tetkin about which I wrote earlier that was attacked by Ukrainian forces."
For the most part in Iowa, every bit of land that is tillable is already being farmed aside from ground that is in government conservation reserve programs (CRP) under state/federal contracts. The government would likely have to do something to amend those agreements to allow farming these chunks of ground (temporarily?) without any penalties associated with the programs.You Iowa folks need to put every field in Iowa into production. Along with every other American farmer. No acreage takes a year off in this scenario. 🇺🇸🇺🇦
NATO has been an amazing success. Over the decades it has existed there have been some ups and downs. You sustain something this successful not with a transactional eye, but a long term view, and behind the scenes nudging and sustained diplomacy. If you want to say Trump brought attention to a lagging European effort, meh. Some of them were lagging, and some were not. But, it isn't a day by day, year by year transaction. Multiple nations have helped to keep US forces on their territory for decades, and all participants of the treaty have benefited greatly from NATO.
I've never credibly heard that Trumps tweets immediately caused a bump in funding by the lagging nations. And, they certainly did not strengthen the alliance, instead they emboldened Putin.
Nothing, huh?That's one way to put it.
of NATO’s 28 member states, only five spend the recommended 2 percent or more of their GDP per year on defense; Estonia is the sole Baltic country to meet the 2-percent benchmark.* The United States, meanwhile, covers 72.2 percent of NATO’s budget.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/obama-putin-nato-russia-trump/494894/
And since we're heading down that road, do think the statements below, from what I would call rather prominent Democratic figures, strengthened or hurt NATO relations? Did comments like these embolden Putin?
A panelist quoted Sanders’ own words on NATO from 1997. Back then he said, "It is not the time to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars helping to defend Europe."
Asked if he still felt that way during the debate, Sanders said, "We spend about 75 percent of the entire cost of the military aspect of NATO. Given the fact that France has a very good health care system and free public education, college education for their people, the U.K. has a good National Health Service and they also provide fairly reasonable higher education, you know what, yeah, I do believe that the countries of Europe should pick up more of the burden for their defense."
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/apr/19/bernie-s/sanders-oversimplifies-us-share-NATO/
In frank comments about foreign relations, the US president also revealed he warned his British counterpart that the “special relationship” would be at risk if the UK did not commit to spending 2% of its national income on defence, in line with Nato targets.
The remarks were made in a lengthy interview with the Atlantic. Obama expressed aggravation with “free riders” among world leaders who call for international action if there is a war or other humanitarian crisis but do not commit enough military resources. “You have to pay your fair share,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/david-cameron-distracted-libya-conflict-barack-obama