a free shadow

This will not be a smart question, so only is there is time for it. Why are there so few tanks across all countries and how can so few do real damage? I imagined there are thousands and thousands of them, and rather as supplement but not main measures.

I have just completely failed an exam, which I should have passed perfectly, just because I cannot keep two thoughts in line. At least here are points to others... 5 4 3

This only proves that I always have the point I would almost like to submit a clue about the Others, but not at the cost of the point

nothing too useful was here

why? where is this from?

"VFFRK", Qyburn vented.

Insult! My vote is worth at least 113 points

They want as many people as possible to share in the victory, to personally experience being a hero in the country of heroes.

Brief take on the former soviet and now Russian negotiating tactics by the Estonian prime minister.

Russian army is in Belarus, invited and not unlikely to try protecting Belarusian people from themselves.

It rather says "potential use" of nuclear weapons in case of invasion to Crimea, which is nothing new, even speaking about other teritories. If Russia is savvy enough to use Musk, it is savvy enough to make sure the message is exactly what they want people to think and not exactly the truth. It will be interesting to hear if this call even happened though, because Russia is usually not that savvy. Unless he just barged in as an useful fool. In any case, the truly interesting note seems to be about Ukrainians having issues with Starlink in retaken territories without a clear reason. Was there any explanation for that before?

it is my favorite entry of the first round. by far ______ 1. many timed person (it is so bright!) 4. greenlit wildfire 3. ravenmaster and raven

Ah, yes, someone being persecuted here by people not willing to take a bit of nonsense for a valuable contribution. Let us not forget that all this started with your willingness to engage with the argument that Russia has every right to invade Ukraine, stating the point of view that the war in Ukraine is more legitimate/historically accepted and based on less ludicrous/specious grounds than war in Iraq. If it is "more legitimate" then it is at least slightly legitimate, to move the needle, isn't it? Your further contribution is to retroactively delete parts of posts that have been proven to be extra inaccurate, cry that nobody is really reading your arguments despite plenty detailed replies on point, weirdly misread arguments made by others just to make them convenient to respond to, etc. Your opinion might be close to your heart, but it should get closer to the brain.

The fact that there is not much will in Russia to blame Russia is of course true. The fact that many people are quoting still-operating media supported narrative against "the West" is also true. But in terms of the quote you chose about "more than 20 countries US has bombed", experience suggests that even the person who said that would not really be able make a list of these countries, as what they are doing is simply re-transmitting the broader message of opressed Russia chosen and broadcasted for them, against all evidence. Even your chosen source states: "These people tend not to question news reports or narratives that are the bread and butter of Russian state media coverage of the war." So, what you are favorably engaging with is the narrative and excuses chosen by Russian power structures for Russian benefit, which always had little regard and gave little weight for the truth. Not grassroots movement by the people to get justice for "more than 20 countries US has bombed", let alone war in Iraq. If you believe that the powers that chose that message would not have been able to come up with other (real or invented) justification for it if not the war in Iraq, then you must be unfamiliar with the reality, especially of the recent decade in Russia.

Where are you getting this from, what source, other than your own mind? That some people, when cornered by real arguments against their position, take last refuge in "what about that other thing" does not mean they believe it. It means they just wish to escape the real argument. And it is relatively effective because enough useful fools fall for it. Not sure how many people in Russia might be resorting to it now as they are receiving more pushback (who cares, as it is a distraction rather than a real position), but after Crimea, etc. you would openly hear that it is either their right or that they personally have nothing to do with any wars and can you just not ask about it. Nobody ever brought up Iraq. As to Putin's ability to wage the war depending on the people who you think feel slighted by Iraq war, it is non-existent. Firstly of course, because the whole power structure there is so far removed from the people's opinions. Secondly, because those opinions are curated for the people and even the propoganda did not focus on Iraq. Thirdly, a lot of the people seem to be fine with any kind of thing no matter why it is done as long as it does not touch them directly. For example, I do remember still how the first argument I heard directly from someone living in Russia against the occupation of parts of Ukraine when it started was really the monetary cost of it and "the bother" of it. And it was from those with full access to information from outside the country. I am curious, how many such converastions are you having? And if you are really having any, how genuinely do you think Iraq comes up? How do you respond to it? ^^