Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yeah, it's a known disinformation tactic: They claim WWIII will result as a result of our actions... as if they're not the one to invade Ukraine.And here it comes:
Kremlin accuses US of risking World War III
A Russian politician says the Biden administration is "trying to escalate the situation to the maximum while they still have power and are still in office".www.abc.net.au
These landmines are not banned. The have timer that will make it in active after a certain period. That is why other types were banned. The stayed active indefinitly and therefor was banned.
Well said. And IMO, Ukraine will join NATO, but not until after Jan 20, 2029.A thought about the imposition of a deal on Ukraine. I think its worth remembering what Russia's aims were when they started this war. They wanted Ukraine to be totally under their control and a compliant figurehead in charge, similar to Belarus. A key fear being the strengthening of NATO.
We obviously have no idea what is likely to happen over the next few months, but its highly unlikely that Russia is going to get any of the above. They may get a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO, but NATO has been considerably strengthened by the addition of Sweden and Finland so even that goal hasn't been achieved.
Putin has also bankrupted Russia (which is a key reason why the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact failed). He has also ensured that Russian demographics are such that Russia is on a sure path to failure due to the falling population.
Putin has also owes lots of favours to China and N Korea who will want their pound of flesh, and ceded to China the role of being the biggest threat to the free world. In almost every measurable way China now surpasses Russia and Eastern Russia may well be the next trigger point. Russia has few people and lots of space and resources in the area and China is next door.
It is very unlikely that history will be kind to Putin.
Polls always come with margins of error. They are also snapshots. The basic principles of polling are rooted in probability, in the same way that pulling three or four bolts out of a batch can give quite high assurance that the whole batch should be scrapped. Unfortunately, in the US the electoral college makes real nation-wide polling impossible: each sub-unit of the country needs to be polled.Does anyone have any evidence that polling in Ukraine is more accurate than polling in the US? I always find it interesting in stories about polls that the important demographic information is never included by the pollsters, and if you didn't the results of one poll, just wait a day or two and there'll be another one that says the opposite.
Like the Austrian Anschluss referendum?Polls always come with margins of error. They are also snapshots. The basic principles of polling are rooted in probability, in the same way that pulling three or four bolts out of a batch can give quite high assurance that the whole batch should be scrapped. Unfortunately, in the US the electoral college makes real nation-wide polling impossible: each sub-unit of the country needs to be polled.
I suspect that political pollsters are too likely to word their questions in ways that skew answers in the way their employers want, which verges on malpractice.