@lowfour (post #300)
ostia, eso no lo ves en nuestros carnavales ni del palo
se ve que allí tienen más controladitos a los ciberputis, y aquí están más extendidos o algo así
WWIII, el hilo holístico del guano masivo
lowfour
Started 2023-11-05
1335 posts
son ejercicios "nordic response"
el f35 no lo viste o qué?
hasta el 15 de marzo tienes pa verlo, imagino que iran en formación como 3-4 o así
Edited 2024-03-07
FALS FLAJ CIBERPUTI?
Ojo que va en serio. BLACK SWAN de libro hoyga. Empieza la represión total en Rusia? Buscan una excusa para tirar una nuke? Eventos de calidad, himbierta en ladrillo como Cinta!
Buah, a Vladimir se le apareció San Moskovskaya esa mañana
@lowfour (post #304)
tiene más pinta de represión interna que de falseflaj ciberputi
igual tienen a grupos anti-putin hasta el toto que han dicho, pa morir en ucrania, morimos aquí y de paso nos llevamos a un nazi de verdad
@lowfour (post #305) eso es una señal o algo así del destino o de los dioses o yoquese
La versión rusa llevará un mobnik dentro a modo de Laika.
Qué sospechoso me parece que Victoria Nuland alias la enmurada, alias "_Fuck the EU!_", se "retire" ahora, fue la jefa de la guerra de Ucrania en 2014.
De Nancy Pelosi, alias Skeletor, sabemos que se retiró porque enviaron un sicario a su casa a darla un susto (¿sería China?), pero de esta no se sabe todavía y puede que nunca se sepa.
Yo creo que es de chapa, seguro que encuentran una aleta del mismo color en Desguaces Latorrovich
Estoy mirando un stream en directo del Vlad Vexler (como le gusta hablar a este chico oye, pero tiene un efecto meditativo en mi).
Y acaba de decir que el riesgo nuclear con el Putinismo es real. Medvedev refleja el pensamiento del Kremlin. Y que la gente que intenta minimizar o negar ese riesgo está equivocada.
Acojona. Este Vlad entiende el putinismo mejor que nadie que haya visto.
"Tenemos un proyecto muy friki, fuera de control e imperialista. Y con crecientes visiones místicas de un individuo. Esto es serio y no tenemos que suavizar la realidad."
>@lowfour (post #311) "Tenemos un proyecto muy friki, fuera de control e imperialista. Y con crecientes visiones místicas de un individuo. Esto es serio y no tenemos que suavizar la realidad."
pues tiene razón, pero no
o sea, nos tenemos que tomar en serio que la ida de olla de esa peña es importante y tienen nukes y estarían dispuestos a usarlas (otra cosa es que el que el del submarino con las nukes sea igual de tarado, pero esto ya es otro tema)
la movida es que NO debemos antagonizar del modo en que se creen "sinergias" con sus delirios, o sea, no nos convirtamos en una profecía autocumplida o algo así
es un poco lo que pasa entre los lazis y el pp-vox, que entre ellos se refuerzan, porque cuanto más dicen unos que les oprimen, más lazis se ponen y más se dedican a "oprimir" los otros
por eso fue tan demoledor que ken diera amnistías, les rompía todo el relato españa-facha de un tirón, pero claro, tampoco es plan de dar privilegios a cascoporro (como la amnistía de los huevos) porque entonces entran los otros en resonancia y se crean su "lazismo" paralelo anti-sanchez y tal
así que habrá que ser discretos o algo así, pero preparar un iron-dome que no entre una mosca por si las idem
Edited 2024-03-10
Poland: NATO soldiers are already in place in Ukraine
Published 10 Mar 2024 at 18:23,updated at 19.07
That NATO would enter Ukraine militarily is not out of the question, French President Emmanuel Macron said last week .
But that has already been done, according to Poland.
Don't miss anything about the war in Ukraine - download Expressen's app here.
Following Macron's statement, several NATO countries, including Germany, the United States and Great Britain, have ruled out entering Ukraine militarily.
Ulf Kristersson (M) also said at the end of February that Swedish troops in Ukraine are excluded.
But according to the foreign minister of NATO country Poland, it has already been done.
Russian response: “Couldn't hide”
He did not want to answer questions about which NATO countries sent soldiers and to what extent they are in Ukraine.
The move from Sikorski surprised the press - but not Russia.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz ruled out NATO troops in Ukraine this week. Scholz's leadership has been criticized by other NATO leaders, including Emmanuel Macron.
Edited 2024-03-10
Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine
For a few weeks in October 2022, the White House was consumed in a crisis whose depths were not publicly acknowledged at the time. It was a glimpse of what seemed like a terrifying new era.
President Biden was standing in an Upper East Side townhouse owned by the businessman James Murdoch, the rebellious scion of the media empire, surrounded by liberal New York Democrats who had paid handsomely to come hear optimistic talk about the Biden agenda for the next few years.
**It was Oct. 6, 2022, but what they heard instead that evening was a disturbing message that — though Mr. Biden didn’t say so — came straight from highly classified intercepted communications he had recently been briefed about, suggesting that President Vladimir V. Putin’s threats to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine might be turning into an operational plan.**
For the “first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he told the group, as they gathered amid Mr. Murdoch’s art collection, “**we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they’ve been going.**” The gravity of his tone began to sink in: The president was talking about the prospect of the first wartime use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And not at some vague moment in the future. He meant in the next few weeks.
**The intercepts revealed that for the first time since the war in Ukraine had broken out, there were frequent conversations within the Russian military about reaching into the nuclear arsenal. Some were just “various forms of chatter,” one official said. But others involved the units that would be responsible for moving or deploying the weapons. The most alarming of the intercepts revealed that one of the most senior Russian military commanders was explicitly discussing the logistics of detonating a weapon on the battlefield.**
Fortunately, Mr. Biden was told in his briefings, there was no evidence of weapons being moved. **But soon the C.I.A. was warning that, under a singular scenario in which Ukrainian forces decimated Russian defensive lines and looked as if they might try to retake Crimea** — a possibility that seemed imaginable that fall — **the likelihood of nuclear use might rise to 50 percent or even higher. That “got everyone’s attention fast**,” said an official involved in the discussions.
No one knew how to assess the accuracy of that estimate: the factors that play into decisions to use nuclear weapons, or even to threaten their use, were too abstract, too dependent on human emotion and accident, to measure with precision. But it wasn’t the kind of warning any American president could dismiss.
“It’s the nuclear paradox,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until he retired in September, told me over dinner last summer at his official quarters above the Potomac River, recalling the warnings he had issued in the Situation Room.
He added: “**The more successful the Ukrainians are at ousting the Russian invasion, the more likely Putin is to threaten to use a bomb — or reach for it.**”
This account of what happened in those October days — as it happened, just before the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the United States and the Soviet Union ever came to a nuclear exchange in the Cold War — was reconstructed in interviews I conducted over the past 18 months with administration officials, diplomats, leaders of NATO nations and military officials who recounted the depth of their fear in those weeks.
**Though the crisis passed, and Russia now appears to have gained an upper hand on the battlefield as Ukraine runs low on ammunition, almost all of the officials described those weeks as a glimpse of a terrifying new era in which nuclear weapons were back at the center of superpower competition.**
While news that Russia was considering using a nuclear weapon became public at the time, the interviews underscored that the worries at the White House and the Pentagon ran far deeper than were acknowledged then, and that extensive efforts were made to prepare for the possibility. **When Mr. Biden mused aloud that evening that “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily” make use of “a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” he was reflecting urgent preparations being made for a U.S. reaction**. Other details of extensive White House planning were published in a New York Times opinion piece by W.J. Hennigan and by Jim Sciutto of CNN.
**Mr. Biden said he thought Mr. Putin was capable of pulling the trigger. “We’ve got a guy I know fairly well,” he said of the Russian leader. “He is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”**
Since then, the battlefield advantage has changed dramatically, and October 2022 now looks like the high-water mark of Ukraine’s military performance over the past two years. Yet Mr. Putin has now made a new set of nuclear threats, during his equivalent of the State of the Union address in Moscow in late February. He said that any NATO countries that were helping Ukraine strike Russian territory with cruise missiles, or that might consider sending their own troops into battle, “must, in the end, understand” that “all this truly threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore the destruction of civilization.”
_President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia made a new set of nuclear threats during his speech to the nation in late February. _
**“We also have weapons that can strike targets on their territory,” Mr. Putin said. “Do they not understand this?”**
**Mr. Putin was speaking about Russian medium-range weapons that could strike anywhere in Europe, or his intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the United States. But the scare in 2022 involved so-called battlefield nukes: tactical weapons small enough to be loaded into an artillery shell and designed to eviscerate a military unit or a few city blocks.**
**At least initially, their use would look nothing like an all-out nuclear exchange, the great fear of the Cold War. The effects would be horrific but limited to a relatively small geographic area — perhaps detonated over the Black Sea, or blasted into a Ukrainian military base.**
Yet the White House concern ran so deep that task forces met to map out a response. **Administration officials said that the United States’ countermove would have to be nonnuclear. But they quickly added that there would have to be some kind of dramatic reaction — perhaps even a conventional attack on the units that had launched the nuclear weapons — or they would risk emboldening not only Mr. Putin but every other authoritarian with a nuclear arsenal, large or small.**
Yet as was made clear in Mr. Biden’s “Armageddon speech” — as White House officials came to call it — no one knew what kind of nuclear demonstration Mr. Putin had in mind. **Some believed that the public warnings Russia was making that Ukraine was preparing to use a giant “dirty bomb,” a weapon that spews radiological waste, was a pretext for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.**
The wargaming at the Pentagon and at think tanks around Washington imagined that Mr. Putin’s use of a tactical weapon — perhaps followed by a threat to detonate more — could come in a variety of circumstances. **One simulation envisioned a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive that imperiled Mr. Putin’s hold on Crimea. Another involved a demand from Moscow that the West halt all military support for the Ukrainians: no more tanks, no more missiles, no more ammunition. The aim would be to split NATO; in the tabletop simulation I was permitted to observe, the detonation served that purpose.**
To forestall nuclear use, in the days around Mr. Biden’s fund-raiser appearance Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken called his Russian counterpart, as did Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, was going on a planned visit to Beijing; he was prepped to brief Xi Jinping, China’s president, about the intelligence and urge him to make both public and private statements to Russia warning that there was no place in the Ukraine conflict for the use of nuclear weapons. Mr. Xi made the public statement; it is unclear what, if anything, he signaled in private.
**Mr. Biden, meanwhile, sent a message to Mr. Putin that they had to set up an urgent meeting of emissaries. Mr. Putin sent Sergei Naryshkin, head of the S.V.R., the Russian foreign intelligence service that had pulled off the Solar Winds attack, an ingenious cyberattack that had struck a wide swath of U.S. government departments and corporate America. Mr. Biden chose William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, who is now his go-to troubleshooter for a variety of the toughest national security problems, most recently getting a temporary cease-fire and the release of hostages held by Hamas.**
**Mr. Burns told me that the two men saw each other on a mid-November day in 2022. But while Mr. Burns arrived to warn what would befall Russia if it used a nuclear weapon, Mr. Naryshkin apparently thought the C.I.A. director had been sent to negotiate an armistice agreement that would end the war.** He told Mr. Burns that any such negotiation had to begin with an understanding that Russia would get to keep any land that was currently under its control.
**It took some time for Mr. Burns to disabuse Mr. Naryshkin of the idea that the United States was ready to trade away Ukrainian territory for peace**. Finally, they turned to the topic Mr. Burns had traveled around the world to discuss: what the United States and its allies were prepared to do to Russia if Mr. Putin made good on his nuclear threats.
**“I made it clear,” Mr. Burns later recalled from his seventh-floor office at the C.I.A., that “there would be clear consequences for Russia.”** Just how specific Mr. Burns was about the nature of the American response was left murky by American officials. He wanted to be detailed enough to deter a Russian attack, but avoid telegraphing Mr. Biden’s exact reaction.
**“Naryshkin swore that he understood and that Putin did not intend to use a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Burns said.**
oye, mira, yo paso de leer todo eso
ceno o ya si eso me amortajo yo mismo porque nos quedan 20 min???
mira quien financia la guerra de putin, 28k millones en gas ruso (y derivados), tanto como ayuda militar a ukr
y eso que se lo compramos barato (al menos, eso dicen)
pero lo curioso es lo otro, y acaba de empezar
_Francia adelanta por primera vez como segundo exportador mundial a Rusia, cuyas ventas de armas se han reducido a la mitad._
_el conflicto en Ucrania provocó que las compras subiesen un 94 % en Europa, que aumentó su dependencia respecto a Estados Unidos (del 35 % al 55 % del volumen total adquirido)._
a ver si todo este rollo con las nukes es un poco como la campañita de "okupas" que hace que se vendan alarmas "antiokupa" y tal...
@lowfour (post #317)
esos nos leen y tal
lo que comentábamos de que militarmente, rusia es un mojonaco, pero "políticamente" nos está jodiendo vivos
_Dozens—if not hundreds or more—of Russian agents have been observed everywhere from English towns to Canadian universities. Many of these agents are low-level and appear to achieve little individually, but occasionally **they penetrate institutions, companies, and governments**. Meanwhile, a flood of money props up Moscow’s ambitions, including **hundreds of millions of dollars the Kremlin is pouring into influencing elections**, with some of that money covertly (and overtly) **funneled to political parties and individual politicians**. For many decades, Western societies have been deluged with every sort of influence imaginable._
_ “**information-psychological warfare**”—as a Russian military textbook calls it—is intended to “**erode the morale and psychological spirit” of an enemy population**. A central aspect of a wider war against the West, it is conducted online through **relentless barrages of fake, real, and misrepresented news**, through a cultivated network of witting and unwitting shills such as Carlson. The Kremlin’s messaging has an extraordinary reach: **In the first year of the Ukraine war alone, posts by Kremlin-linked accounts were viewed at least 16 billion times by Westerners.** Every one of those views is part of a full-spectrum attack against the West d**esigned not just to undermine support for Ukraine, but to actively damage Western democratic systems**._
lo pongo en grande, porque cuando hablen de nukes, lo que tratan de ocultar es esto:
not just to undermine support for Ukraine, but to actively damage Western democratic systems
cuándo hablan de nukes?
cuando hay cierta unión o unidad de acción en europa o en usa, cuando la propaganda no funcina, cuando orban y demás satélites no consiguen sus objetivos de tenernos peleados y joder todo el sistema
encontrarán la excusa "militar" que sea, pero en el fondo, es esto otro
porque ya les están zumbando con misiles de crucero otan, desde hace 2 años, pero han callado durante meses lo de las nukes
cuando les fallan los amigos de cinta en el mar rojo, nukes
cuando no pueden torpedear el aumento de gasto militar ue, nukes
que nos da por tener una coodinación militar ue, en paralelo a "otan", pues más nukes
los tractores ya no gripan nada, nukes
que igual no es una relación directa, pero sí correlaciona muy bien
te crees el más MAGA del mundo, el más patriota, y en realidad eres el más marioneta de putin (como cinta, que es magafantas, anti-globalista y toda esa lista de qanon)
y claro, en rusia puedes cortar toda propaganda o mensaje que no convenga a putin, pero aquí?? con los derechos sobre libertad de expresión y tal y los ciberputis echando horas extras para inyectar mierda, como acebes hace 20 años, pero en rollo maga y tal
y aunque el artículo es largodecojones, no se mete con las campañitas del brexit y los lazis y tal, que básicamente es rusia torpedeando la ue
Edited 2024-03-11
agarraos fuerte con esto
policias chinos en un país miembro ue
nomejodas
los lazis tenían el "mismo" acuerdo para su republiqueta y tal, poli china, soldados chinos, etc
@lowfour (post #321)
pues igual el trump tiene un accidente o algo, eh?
Edited 2024-03-15
Mujeres de la Bauhaus. 7 años de la llegada al poder de Adolf Hitler. 13 años antes de la WWII. 15 años antes del plan de la solución final y los campos de exterminio.
[Otti Berger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otti_Berger) por ejemplo murió en Auschwitz por tener origen judío y ser medio sorda.
[Gunta Stölzl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunta_St%C3%B6lzl) fue depurada por Mihes Van Der Rohe por las presiones nazis.
No os digo nada y os lo digo todo.
Maricrón le echa un par de pelotas y dice que de ninguna manera Rusia puede salir con la suya. Que se han pasado todo los acuerdos por el forro, que ha mentido. Que si ganan la seguridad en Europa se acabó. Que ya estamos viendo las consecuencias en Europa, que les han bloqueado hospitales por ataques rusos, que los precios de la energía se dispararon etc. Dice que ya no están atacando, no con armas, pero con guerra combinada.
Bueeeeno buenooo buenooo.... Los GOP republicanos están viendo como incluso los más palurdos MAGA se dan cuenta de que están ayudando a Rusia y ahora que las "elecciones" de Putin ya están aquí están dando marcha atrás a toda ostia y ya no conectan el tema ayuda a Ucrania con lo de los inmigrantes y tal. Era una jodida excusa.
Los demócratas han llenado las redes de mensajes contra los GOP remarcando su supeditación a Putin, su traición a los valores americanos y tal. Vamos, llamándoles traidores. Parece que la estrategia ha tenido resultado. Todo esto, por supuesto, fue impulsado por Trump que, recordemos, es el principal Asset Ruso para esta guerra contra occidente.
El daño sin embargo está hecho, pero los Checos y sus municiones sacadas de la chistera han parado lo que podría haber sido la derrota total Ukra por la traición americana republicana.
How the Czech Republic has just stopped Putin cold and saved Ukraine
Without help in the nick of time, Kyiv would probably have lost an entire oblast by now
ussia went to war in Ukraine two years ago with twice as many artillery pieces as Ukraine had. But it isn’t the advantage in howitzers that really matters – it’s the advantage in shells.
After all, a single gun firing 50 shells a day is about as useful as two guns each firing 25.
For hundreds of years, artillery has dominated land warfare. Firing far and hitting hard, it’s the biggest killer of infantry, the main means of supporting an attack and the main means of supporting a defence.
It’s for that reason that, in charting the supply of artillery ammunition on both sides of a war, you can map the progress of that war. The side with the most shells is probably going to win.
And it’s why a surprise initiative, led by the Czech Republic and involving more than a dozen European countries, has been so critical to Ukraine’s survival as Russia’s wider war on the country grinds into its third year.
The Czechs found, for Ukraine, nearly a million shells precisely when Ukraine needed those million shells the most: at the peak of Russia’s winter offensive. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the Czech artillery initiative probably saved entire Ukrainian cities, by giving the Ukrainian army the firepower to resist a much bigger Russian army.
It’s no secret how Ukraine got into an artillery bind late last year. In early 2023, according to The Washington Post, the United States quietly brokered a deal with South Korea – a country with sprawling artillery factories – to purchase, likely for billions of dollars, a whopping one million shells in the standard Nato 155mm calibre, now also the standard artillery round of Ukraine.
Those million shells, heaped on top of ammunition Ukraine was getting directly from the USA and European countries, freed Ukraine’s 3,000 or so howitzers to blast away at a rate of at least 10,000 rounds a day – matching, for the first time, the daily firing rate of Russia’s 6,000 howitzers.
For months, the Ukrainians at least achieved firepower parity with the Russians. While many analysts rate Ukraine’s mid-2023 counteroffensive, which liberated just a few hundred square miles in southern and eastern Ukraine, as a profound disappointment, even modest gains are preferable to losing ground.
And losing ground is exactly what the Ukrainians did after their counteroffensive petered out around October. That’s when the Russian army, swelling to nearly half a million deployed troops thanks to a nationwide mobilisation, went on the attack. The Russians concentrated tens of thousands of their best-equipped troops for a drive on the most vulnerable Ukrainian city: Avdiivka, a former industrial centre just a few miles from the front line in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast.
Those troops suffered astounding casualties – probably tens of thousands – but steadily advanced. They surely noticed that, with every day that passed as fall turned to winter, Ukraine’s artillery fire became more sporadic and, in some sectors, even fell completely silent.
To understand how Ukrainian howitzers that once fired non-stop eventually went idle, you have to understand American politics. Americans elect the US Congress every two years. And in 2022, they narrowly chose Republicans to lead the US House of Representatives, one of two houses of Congress. The presidency and the US Senate remained in the hands of the Democratic Party.
Before losing the House in November 2022, the Democrats approved $75 billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. That aid began to run out in October. President Joe Biden promptly proposed an additional $61 billion in funding for Ukraine but, to the shock of the political mainstream in the USA, the Republican speaker of the house, Representative Mike Johnson, declined to exercise his exclusive authority to bring the aid to a vote. This, despite the fact that majorities of both parties were in favour.
Johnson told a lot of stories to explain his opposition to helping Ukraine, but they’re all spin. The simple truth is that disgraced ex-president Donald Trump, who is running for the presidency this year and is weirdly fond of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, voiced his ambivalence toward Ukraine. And Johnson translated that ambivalence into a one-man Congressional blockade of US support for Ukraine. Support that would have paid for hundreds of thousands of shells.
Ukraine began running out of ammo because that’s what Trump wanted. And because a European Union project to manufacture a million shells for Ukraine was six months late for its 2023 deadline, Ukraine’s daily artillery usage fell from 10,000 rounds to just 2,000 rounds, while Russia’s own usage remained elevated thanks to a huge ammo consignment from North Korea.
By mid-February, the Russians were on the march in and around Avdiivka. The ammo-starved Ukrainian garrison retreated – and kept retreating as the Russians’ momentum carried them farther and farther west.
But then, on Feb. 18, Czech defense policy chief Jan Jires shocked his audience when he announced – at a Munich security conference – that his government had identified 800,000 artillery shells “sitting in non-Western countries.” Those countries apparently include South Korea, Turkey and South Africa.
The shells could be had for $1.5 billion, Czech officials said.
“Most of these countries [are] unwilling to support Ukraine directly for political reasons so they need a middleman,” Jires said, according to Politico reporter Paul McLeary and other sources. The Czech Republic would be that middleman, if Ukraine’s allies – other than the USA, of course – would help to pay for the ammo.
Belgium, Canada, Denmark and The Netherlands quickly signed up. Soon, another 13 countries joined the Czech artillery club. In three weeks, Jires and his colleagues collected all $1.5 billion. Shells were on their way within weeks.
With months’ worth of shells on the way, Ukrainian brigades no longer had to conserve what little ammo they’d been saving for emergencies. In early March, Ukraine’s batteries opened fire.
Five miles west of Avdiivka, Ukrainian troops halted their retreat, turned and counterattacked. Finally enjoying something approaching adequate artillery support, they stopped the Russian offensive dead in its tracks in villages with names like Berdychi, Orlivka and Tonen’ke.
Artillery – a shortage of it – is the main reason the Ukrainians nearly lost a whole eastern oblast to the Russians this winter and spring. And artillery – a million shells brokered by a tiny Eastern European country – is the main reason the Ukrainians didn’t lose that whole oblast.
If artillery is the king of battle, the current kingmaker is … the Czech Republic.
@lowfour (post #326)
tío, que haces una búsqueda en google fotos y es raro que no des con el pavel vestido de militar:
a ver si va a ser un "topo" de la otan igual que el trump lo es de putin... porque el pavel no solo era general, sino que fue parte del generalato otan
yo le llamo "solid snake" porque en algunas fotos me recuerda al personaje de metal gear solid (yoquesé, friki que es uno)
la cosa es que estos se han coscao de la movida y enviaron tanques y lo que han podido
seguramente es uno de los que están con los 🦅 para militarizar la ue a piñón, ya os puse ayer que estuvo con el sueco para mandar más obuses a ucrania
lo malo de nosotros (y ahora portugal) es que estamos cogidos por los huevos del lazismo (que es putiniano) y de sumar (que es ex-iu, antiotan desde hace eones, no necesariamente putinianos, como belarra&cia, pero siguen con el orden mundial en sus cabecitas pre-1990 o algo así y siguen mirando a la otan como "imperialismo yanki" y tal)
a ver qué pasa, pero vamos a quedar fatal en ucrania, en la otan y en el mundo en general (en el anti-putin)
el martin dice que al macron le ha jodido que wagner se meta con mali, porloquesea
nah, ya llevan dando por culo un año por ahí, pero vamos, que era eso y los tractoristas y todo lo demás directo o indirecto
este es otro mensajito a rusia o qué??
es normal que georgia participe en los ejercicios estos?
@elarquitecto (post #329)
Georgia es muy anti Rusia, y saben que son el enemigo. Llevan recibiendo adiestramiento OTAn desde antes del conflicto con Rusia, y hay personal americano allí desde que se formó el país.
Please log in to reply to this discussion.
Log In