Elerond

In Kiev alone there are over two dozen dead in one location. I mean Russia shot over 80 missiles and less than dozen hit in infrastructure. Either they are absolute incompetent or they didn't target infrastructure

As most missiles that weren't shot down by air defense didn't hit electricity, heating, waterpumps etc., but parks, busy streets etc. I would say that you are wrong in your assessment

Countries have very hard time to fight offensive wars without support from majority of their population.

Real Elon fans will name their child as X Æ A-12.

Both Ukraine and Russia are able to lose 300k men if they are willing. Ukraine has population over 41 million people and Russia has population of over 144 million people. For example during WW2, Finland lost about 100k men from population of 3.3 million. Soviet union lost over 27 million men from population of 170 million. Question is about how many men their governments are willing to sacrifice for millimeter of land gained.

That is the difficult question as there is no simple definition of being Nazi, as it is ideology that consist of social, economical and political views. But if person views include racial purity, supporting political alternative for capitalism and socialism, opposing liberal democracy, disdain towards minority groups especially in form that minorities are threat to said person livelihood and way to live. And if person uses 'science' to prove their superiority. Then you can be pretty sure that you are dealing with person that would have been at home in Nazi Germany.

Yes, that is why we put in place systems where other countries and international organizations will supervise that past doesn't repeat itself. But these day such is seen as awful overreach of undemocratic institutions hindering free democracy

It is difficult these days, considering for example that in Italy party that won the election Brothers of Italy was founded by original fascist and its leader has multiple times proclaimed that Mussolini was great man and politician. But quite lot people seem to think that calling them fascists is just sore losers If it looks like duck, moves like duck, sounds like duck, we should give it benefit of doubt

In the Winter War political merit was more important than knowledge about warfare for soviets, which lead soviets to use bad strategies (for example mass assault to strongest Finnish positions over frozen lake, leading thousands men to drown after soviet forces were hit by Finnish artillery that broke the ice), and they didn't use combined arms until end of the war when they changed leadership to people who actually had know how about wars and how different forces should be used. And Soviets weren't prepared to long campaign in record cold winter. As soviets send their divisions from Black Sea area that had fought victoriously in Romania. Those divisions didn't have any experience of fighting in winter and they didn't even have winter clothing. And someone in soviet army had brilliant idea that soldiers can warm themselves by drinking vodka. Finland ended up to lose after winter ended and soviets started to combine their arms in their attacks (meaning that air planes, artillery, tanks and infantry attacked in same time instead of taking turns) and Finnish forces run out of ammunition and other supplies as promised help from France and UK never arrived. But to the point Russia has forces that are more than capable to fight in winter and snow, most of those forces are from divisions that have been situated to garrisons close to Finland's border. Like arctic brigade in Alakurtti (as name gives away the area was part of Finland before WWII) and northern fleet in Severomorsk (close to Murmansk). In Ukraine war, winter probably will not play big role as Ukraine fights in its own territory and is familiar with weather there. Russians forces have lots of people who are familiar with weather of territories they are currently fighting in. Most significant thing that winter may bring is frozen swamps and fields maneuvers they make possible, which can give new advantages for both sides.

XA-180s and XA-185s, don't have much of electronics and they are designed to be easy to support and they are also used by UN peace keepers, they have existing global support lines. M113s are designed to need minimalist logistic support also Poland has M113s, and is able to provide support for them in Ukraine FV103 Spartan is from 1978, it does not have much of electronics, so maybe Ukraine is able to support themselves with British instructions. YPR-765 is variant of M113, and is designed so that it can be supported with M113s parts. Also APCs usually only have machine guns and don't have targeting computers and other stuff that are found in IFVs, making them easier to support as you don't need special equipment, parts and needed knowledge is smaller. For example conscripts support XA-180s and XA-185s in Finnish Defense Forces, where BMPs and CV90s are supported by cadre engineers. Even me a software engineer was able to change oils, grease, filters, fluids, etc, change tiers, fix basic problems in engine in XA-185 with less than month training. And driving it is same as driving truck. BMPs for example I don't even know how to start them let alone drive them. EDIT: All the APC so far are also designed in 60s and 70s. M113 is from 1964, it is two years older design than BMP-1. XA-180/XA-185 is most 'modern' from 1983. Most of BMP-1s that have been given to Ukraine have been modernized, they have targeting computers, night vision, sensors etc. added to them. In most cases APCs have seen only little modernization and even then usually with newer variants and old ones have left untouched.

Poland gave Ukraine some of their old BMP-1s. Slovakia also send 30 BMP-1s to Ukraine and received 15 Leopards from Germany as compensation Slovenia send 35 BVP M80As to Ukraine Greece is currently in process to send 40 BMP-1s to Ukraine. Germany again approved selling 16 restored Marders to Ukraine There maybe more that are send without public knowledge EDIT: With IFVs there aren't that much western ones to offer as Eastern European countries have mostly relied on modernized BMPs and BMP variants. So they don't have anything else to offer and they can't support American, British or French IFVs.

Old stocks have limit, so at some point they will run out, but situation is not better on Russian side. As in most intensive days of their invasion, Russian artillery shoot more ammunition than Russia produces has typically produced in two years. So even though Russia has vast storages they don't have capacity to use such force for long especially when Ukraine targets their ammunition storages. So as war continues there will be inevitably a point where new weapons and ammunition needs to be produced and peace time production capacity needs to be increased if participants want to keep same intensity

New Zealand probably isn't best example considering their official equipment numbers. If arms stocked somewhere they didn't have much equipment to give in first place.

Considering it has been over 7 months and main target seem to have been Nord Stream 1, that Biden's statement seem bit stretch to use especially when rest of Biden's speech was about sanctions.

President of the European Commission threatens those responsible with nuclear war

There are so much marine traffic that area that no one will notice one civilian boat staying above the pipes EDIT: He is just idiot, as you can see from this Russian foreign ministry's tweet where they use it as tool of their propaganda

It is not easiest thing to tie new energy delivery contracts if you break your previous ones without reason. Even China's and India's energy companies has to think over multiple times their willingness to invest billions to build infrastructure to get Russian gas if their partner company in Russia may not fulfill their contractual obligation when it feels like it.

Yup they aren't in use, they only have minimum amount gas to keep needed pressure up. Because there is no steady stream of gas there is constant risk of leaks that will cause pressure drop in the pipes. But because both pipes started to suffer pressure loss quite same time, there is reason to believe that in was not a coincidence EDIT: Gazprom still needs excuse why it can't hold it end of agreement, in order to avoid sanctions in future in case that relationship between EU and Russia warms up. So far they have constantly found turbines that have suddenly broken. EDIT2: Russia also claims that pipes can't repaired because of sanctions. Germany say that such claim is bull****.

Chernobyl happened in spring, during fall the wind pattern is different as polar winds are stronger, so spread would have been different

Russia already uses strategic bombers, they fly over Black Sea and launch cruise missiles https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russias-secretive-long-range-bomber-operations-against-ukraine

British empire and Russian empire gave Tibet to China in 1907 http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties12.html After fighting over it and then Qing dynasty declared Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. After fall of Qing dynasty in 1912, Tibet become de facto independent as civil war in China kept Chinese busy and not interested of what was happening in Tibet. Tibet didn't established ties to rest of the world except in 1914 they gave small parts of Himalayan to British India (which Chinese government denounced illegal) In 1932 National Revolutionary Army (non-communist troops of Chinese government that currently resides in Taiwan) destroyed Tibet's army, but then Japan invaded to China and quick truce was signed and Chinese troops left to fight against Japanese. In 1949 when communist party took over China with help of Stalin, Tibet expelled all Chinese connected to government. Mao Zedong send Chinese troops Tibet soon after he come in power. In 1950 Tibetian army surrendered to Chinese forces after mostly pacifistic resistance. In June 1950 British government declared that "His Majesty's Government have always been prepared to recognize Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous." In 1951 China and TIbet signed 17 point agreement that formalized China's sovereignty over Tibet. After that China has ruled over Tibet but situation is still quite volatile

It would be stranger if Serbia would recognize independence of areas that self declare themselves as independent China has similar opposition against part of country declaring itself independent.

They have easier time to get anything but German tanks. Germany's current political atmosphere is such that they don't make any fast arms deliveries, as they go back and forth of arms they already have decided to deliver. Although most EU countries don't tell what aid they give Ukraine and how much and when. I saw in Ukrainians tweeting pictures of hundreds of Finnish made armored personnel carries (XA-180 and XA-185) that I used to drive in Finnish Defense forces and they were equipped with all sort equipment that revealed that they could not have come from anywhere than Finland's arms storages, but officially Finland has not given them to Ukraine.

Considering that there are no https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/factsheet-agrifood-eu-sanctions_en.pdf "Contrary to Russia’s disinformation, the disruption of agricultural production and trade in Ukraine and the spike in global food prices is not caused by EU sanctions - but the very own actions of the Russian Government, such as: Russia should put an end to its actions to avoid a major food crisis. Agricultural products can be imported into the EU from Ukraine - and transferred to third countries! There are no EU sanctions on imports from Ukraine whatsoever. Even products from the non-government controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts can be imported, under certain conditions (if examined and approved by the Ukrainian authorities). Phytosanitary products, including herbicides, fertilisers and agricultural machineries can be exported from the EU to Ukraine without restrictions! The restrictions on import of certain potash fertilisers under the EU sanctions on Russia and Belarus only apply to products imported to the EU and do not concern exports of them to Ukraine from the EU or from Russia. There is no cap or EU restriction for import of phytosanitary products as final products Public financing or financial assistance for trade to Ukraine is not restricted! Any EU company can invest and support agricultural production in Ukraine, except in the non-government controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Crimea or Sevastopol There are no EU sanctions targeting ancillary services for importing agricultural products into the EU from Ukraine and transfer them to third countries! EU companies can transport by road, air and sea agricultural products from Ukraine directly to the EU and onwards to partners, including via Ukrainian companies or any other non-sanctioned non-Russian companies. EU sanctions cover only bilateral trade between the EU and Russia - not international trade! EU sanctions have no extra-territorial effect. Third country persons and firms can import agrifood from Russia under EU sanctions if they do that entirely outside the EU. EU’s sanctions excluded a limited number of Russian banks from the SWIFT network. Banking relations via SWIFT can still continue via the other Russian banks. Agricultural products in Russia are not targeted by EU sanctions! EU sanctions do not prohibit EU businesses to purchase, import or pay for Russian agricultural products, provided that sanctioned persons are not involved. The EU has carefully avoided a direct and comprehensive ban on the import of Russian agricultural products. EU Member States can grant access to EU ports of vessels flying the Russian flag, as well as entry to the EU of Russian road carriers for the purposes of importing or transporting agricultural products, including fertilisers and wheat, that are not subject to prohibitions. When restricted services are necessary for importing agricultural products from Russia (including via Belarus), EU sanctions provide for specific exceptions! EU Member States can authorise Russian-flagged vessels access to EU ports and Russian road transport undertakings to operate in the EU if that is for trade in agricultural or food products, including wheat and fertilisers, if the latter is not otherwise prohibited. Public financing or financial assistance for trade by EU companies in the Russian agri-sector is also possible. Only a specific number of Russian and Belarusian banks – and not all – have been listed and/or de-SWIFTED EU businesses can make and receive payments for trade in agricultural products via other Russian and Belarusian banks EU sanctions also envisage several exceptions for humanitarian purposes By way of example, EU Member States can authorise overfly of their airspace by Russian aircraft if that is required for humanitarian purposes. EU Member States are also authorised to grant access to EU ports of Russian flagged-vessels, as well as entry to the EU of Russian road carriers for the purposes of importing or transporting agricultural products, including fertilizers and wheat, that are not subject to restrictions Agricultural products and food, including herbicides, fertilisers and agricultural machineries, can be exported from the EU to Russia, provided that no listed persons are involved! The cap and restrictions on certain fertilisers only apply to products imported in the EU and it does not concern exports of them to Russia or Belarus. EU asset freezes on Russian or Belarusian companies have minimum impact on the agricultural sector! EU sanctions target those responsible for the brutal aggression of Russia against Ukraine. The involvement of the majority of those responsible in the agricultural sector is highly unlikely. The listing of some persons owning or controlling companies in the Russian fertiliser sector does not prevent them from using their products in Russia. EU sanctions also do not bind operators from third countries that choose to maintain commercial ties with Russia." Commission's guidance about coal has not yet been published so it is difficult to say what it will contain in final form