What would WW3 look like?

[boatgeek]

I think it must logically be true the US is picking the targets. The Ukrainians are taking fire down in the trenches and pill boxes while the US has a perfect view of everything on the battlefield from above. Of course the US is picking the targets that will do the most to help our proxy and to minimize the expenditure of costly munitions.

The thought that the US has a perfect picture of the battlefield is frankly ridiculous. All kinds of factors contribute to the fog of war, including everything from spoofing signals to cloud cover. Particularly for targeting things like command posts, there’s going to be a lot of human intelligence on the ground. Ukraine will have a far easier time of that than the US, on account of having a resistance/partisan group behind the lines.

In terms of my best personal recommendation (negotiation) to reduce the risk of escalation, that has firmly expired over the last few months, as both belligerents escalated on the battlefield and ruled out negotiation due to mutually exclusive preconditions. So the Rubicon of total war between Russia and Ukraine has been crossed. I see no compromise possible for either side. It will be fought to the death or capitulation of one or both parties. So how do we avoid escalation under this horrific scenario? Let the parties fight it out as it is unfolding now? You think this will end well, but I don't. Currently my most sanguine recommendation to avoid Putin from profiting from aggression is for us and the Poles to intervene with 150,000 armored light infantry; escalate lightly and hope for the best, fingers crossed.

Wait a minute. I thought you didn’t want a nuclear war. The quickest way to that end is to have a NATO nation send troops.

Russia has already lost a quarter to half of its entire inventory of armored vehicles and a significant fraction of its army. It’s afraid to send its Air Force over Ukraine because of losses from MANPADS. Its navy is largely hiding in port. Russia has already lost—its just a matter of how many more people need to die before the Kremlin realizes that. I think there will be major rollbacks when Ukraine starts using modern armor and General Mud goes on his summer vacation.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I think it must logically be true the US is picking the targets. The Ukrainians are taking fire down in the trenches and pill boxes while the US has a perfect view of everything on the battlefield from above. Of course the US is picking the targets that will do the most to help our proxy and to minimize the expenditure of costly munitions.

In terms of my best personal recommendation (negotiation) to reduce the risk of escalation, that has firmly expired over the last few months, as both belligerents escalated on the battlefield and ruled out negotiation due to mutually exclusive preconditions. So the Rubicon of total war between Russia and Ukraine has been crossed. I see no compromise possible for either side. It will be fought to the death or capitulation of one or both parties. So how do we avoid escalation under this horrific scenario? Let the parties fight it out as it is unfolding now? You think this will end well, but I don't. Currently my most sanguine recommendation to avoid Putin from profiting from aggression is for us and the Poles to intervene with 150,000 armored light infantry; escalate lightly and hope for the best, fingers crossed.

Negotiation?
So, kidnappers come into your neighbor’s house and grab his wife and three children. Which ones do you pressure your neighbor to let them keep in order to go away and stop threatening you?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think it must logically be true the US is picking the targets. The Ukrainians are taking fire down in the trenches and pill boxes while the US has a perfect view of everything on the battlefield from above. Of course the US is picking the targets that will do the most to help our proxy and to minimize the expenditure of costly munitions.

In terms of my best personal recommendation (negotiation) to reduce the risk of escalation, that has firmly expired over the last few months, as both belligerents escalated on the battlefield and ruled out negotiation due to mutually exclusive preconditions. So the Rubicon of total war between Russia and Ukraine has been crossed. I see no compromise possible for either side. It will be fought to the death or capitulation of one or both parties. So how do we avoid escalation under this horrific scenario? Let the parties fight it out as it is unfolding now? You think this will end well, but I don't. Currently my most sanguine recommendation to avoid Putin from profiting from aggression is for us and the Poles to intervene with 150,000 armored light infantry; escalate lightly and hope for the best, fingers crossed.

I really never understand your thinking at all. Sometimes I wonder if you are intentionally trolling.

The absolute LAST thing we should be considering is sending 150,000 NATO troops into Ukraine! I thought you were worried about escalation, direct conflict, and WWIII. Sending a NATO army into Ukraine, hoping for the best, fingers crossed, sounds to me like the most direct path to what you say you don’t want.

 

[Dotini]

I really never understand your thinking at all. Sometimes I wonder if you are intentionally trolling.

The absolute LAST thing we should be considering is sending 150,000 NATO troops into Ukraine! I thought you were worried about escalation, direct conflict, and WWIII. Sending a NATO army into Ukraine, hoping for the best, fingers crossed, sounds to me like the most direct path to what you say you don’t want.

To be fair, I was answering the question what it would take to stop Putin's aggression. At the start of the war, I think Ukraine had about 750,000 trained and equipped fighters of various descriptions. I think they have lost over half that figure in terms of deaths, missing and wounded. They are so short of replacements they are said to be taking 16 and 17 year old boys and girls. So obviously they could use more seasoned infantry. Foreign volunteers and mercenaries are not cutting it. Ukraine needs help with more boots on the ground who bring in their own armor in order to drive out Putin. Sure, that risks escalation. But as everyone has said, our cause is just. Perhaps our actions have more justification and may be held to a lower threshold of scrutiny than those whose actions are unjust? What would be the more honorable course, leave our client dead on his home ground, or intervene risking hopefully no more than proportionate escalation?

 

[boatgeek]

To be fair, I was answering the question what it would take to stop Putin's aggression. I think Ukraine started the war with about 750,000 trained and equipped fighters of various descriptions. I think they have lost over half that figure in terms of deaths, missing and wounded. They are so short of replacements they are said to be taking 16 and 17 year old boys and girls. So obviously they could use more seasoned infantry. Foreign volunteers and mercenaries are not cutting it. Ukraine needs help with more boots on the ground who bring in their own armor in order to drive out Putin. Sure, that risks escalation. But as everyone has said, our cause is just. Perhaps our actions have more justification and may be held to a lower threshold of scrutiny than those whose actions are unjust? What would be the more honorable course, leave our client dead on his home ground, or intervene risking hopefully no more than proportionate escalation?

Where are you getting 375,000 Ukrainian military casualties? That is far in excess of any number I’ve seen.

 

[Pappy]

I'm thinking our response would likely be a flurry of sternly worded memos.

 

[Dotini]

Where are you getting 375,000 Ukrainian military casualties? That is far in excess of any number I’ve seen.

Well, I know you've seen (back in December?) the estimated 100,000 dead figure quoted (and later hastily withdrawn) by Von Der Leyen, and also by General Milley. Add in the estimated 35,000 missing and 300,000 or likely more wounded and you've got a number crippling to a small, beleaguered nation.

Supposedly, dead and wounded are locally compiled from publicly open sources such as obituaries, hospitals, morgues. Very few English language sources publish the casualty figures we are discussing here, as of course they are a vital political/military secret and may affect morale, etc.

 

[boatgeek]

Well, I know you've seen (back in December?) the estimated 100,000 dead figure quoted (and later hastily withdrawn) by Von Der Leyen, and also by General Milley. Add in the estimated 35,000 missing and 300,000 or likely more wounded and you've got a number crippling to a small, beleaguered nation.

Supposedly, dead and wounded are locally compiled from publicly open sources such as obituaries, hospitals, morgues. Very few English language sources publish the casualty figures we are discussing here, as of course they are a vital political/military secret and may affect morale, etc.

Go back and read the Milley article again. That was 100K killed and injured. No need to mark it up.

(Edit) you may just have trouble finding English language casualty estimates that suit your biases. Look for a recent estimate by the Norwegians.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Well, I know you've seen (back in December?) the estimated 100,000 dead figure quoted (and later hastily withdrawn) by Von Der Leyen, and also by General Milley. Add in the estimated 35,000 missing and 300,000 or likely more wounded and you've got a number crippling to a small, beleaguered nation.

Supposedly, dead and wounded are locally compiled from publicly open sources such as obituaries, hospitals, morgues. Very few English language sources publish the casualty figures we are discussing here, as of course they are a vital political/military secret and may affect morale, etc.

These numbers sound like BS to me. I’ve not heard of Ukraine running short of soldiers. Russia is short of soldiers—they have meat, not soldiers.

My prediction is that in the next few months as weather warms up and equipment and supplies reach Ukraine, we are going to see another Ukrainian offensive that will make it clear again they are winning, just as it was clear before the autumn and winter.

 

[Dotini]

These numbers sound like BS to me. I’ve not heard of Ukraine running short of soldiers. Russia is short of soldiers—they have meat, not soldiers.

My prediction is that in the next few months as weather warms up and equipment and supplies reach Ukraine, we are going to see another Ukrainian offensive that will make it clear again they are winning, just as it was clear before the autumn and winter.

It's clear we have a slight difference of opinion that will be easily resolved in the next few months at most. But, as Yogi Berra said, 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

 

[CalebJ]

It's clear we have a slight difference of opinion that will be easily resolved in the next few months at most. But, as Yogi Berra said, 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Differences of opinion are significantly different from differences about the basic facts of the situation. See boatgeek's post above where he corrects your wildly incorrect numbers.

 

[Dotini]

Basic facts are indeed important, but in war are typically obscured by lies, deception and propaganda. Casualty figures are classified secret, and for very good reason. I stand by the figures I have stated, and remain quite confident they will be born out.

In real news, China has signed an "unlimited friendship" agreement with Russia. This means weapons and munitions in addition to increased political and economic support from China to Russia. In Munich, it looks as though Blinken will not be on speaking terms with the Chinese ambassador, who has, probably rightly, accused the US of "hysteria" in reflexively shooting down several harmless balloons with multi-million dollar attacks by our most advanced aircraft and missiles. It does have clownish aspects, I agree.

It will be instructive to see if the US can reverse 30+ years of globalization and become self-sufficient again from a manufacturing point of view. It won't be easy and may not be possible. But I think we should try to succeed with this plan.



This is what I think WW3 looks like. The whole world dividing into those who militarily and economically support the west and those who support the east, very roughly 50:50 at the moment. Our side supports a rules-based unipolar world order run by the US and our largely European allies. The other side (and a minor fraction of our side) wants a multipolar world in which might makes right and the ends justify the means. At the end of the day, Machiavelli probably rules both sides.

Edit:
It looks like Blinken did finally meet informally with his Chinese counterpart.
"Any intelligence suggesting that the balloon’s path into the US may have been unintentional could potentially ease tensions between the two nations."

 

[user 30299]

It will be instructive to see if the US can reverse 30+ years of globalization and become self-sufficient again from a manufacturing point of view. It won't be easy and may not be possible. But I think we should try to succeed with this plan.

And darn it you forgot to add that we need to bring back the Gold Standard while we're at it. (Yes, this is subtle sarcasm.)

 

[Steve Shannon]

This is what I think WW3 looks like. The whole world dividing into those who militarily and economically support the west and those who support the east, very roughly 50:50 at the moment. Our side supports a rules-based unipolar world order run by the US and our largely European allies. The other side (and a minor fraction of our side) wants a multipolar world in which might makes right and the ends justify the means. At the end of the day, Machiavelli probably rules both sides.

That’s not WW3. It’s certainly not news. That’s just world politics as it has always been, but with the fall of the Soviet Union the shapes changes. NATO vs the Warsaw Pact was the old division. Now Warsaw is in NATO.

 

[boatgeek]

Basic facts are indeed important, but in war are typically obscured by lies, deception and propaganda. Casualty figures are classified secret, and for very good reason. I stand by the figures I have stated, and remain quite confident they will be born out.

Dotini: Ukraine has suffered 375,000 casualties, and you can trust my numbers because they came from Gen. Milley and some reasonable assumptions.
Boatgeek: You misinterpreted what Milley said. No need for the extra assumptions.
Dotini: Boy, you sure can't trust numbers! Everything's secret!

How can you stand by your statement that Milley said there were 100K dead when Milley clearly said that there were 100K dead and wounded?

It's clear that nobody should trust your numbers. And by extension any part of your analysis. First you take what Milley said as a reasonable number. When that doesn't fit your preconceived narrative, Milley is out the window. You're fitting "facts" to fit your theories, not the other way around.

 

[Dotini]

Dotini: Ukraine has suffered 375,000 casualties, and you can trust my numbers because they came from Gen. Milley and some reasonable assumptions.
Boatgeek: You misinterpreted what Milley said. No need for the extra assumptions.
Dotini: Boy, you sure can't trust numbers! Everything's secret!

How can you stand by your statement that Milley said there were 100K dead when Milley clearly said that there were 100K dead and wounded?

It's clear that nobody should trust your numbers. And by extension any part of your analysis. First you take what Milley said as a reasonable number. When that doesn't fit your preconceived narrative, Milley is out the window. You're fitting "facts" to fit your theories, not the other way around.

Right, Milley did say 100k dead and injured on both sides. I know that. And it was a far more credible number many times higher than Ukraine itself has admitted to. But I continue to stand by my suggestion of over 375K total casualties because I have other sources based on counts from local obituaries, hospitals, morgues and cemeteries.

You can continue to disparage 100% everything I say as 100% false. But you know that's not right. Instead of doubling down on personal hate and attack, why not cool it and see what the numbers actually say when the fog of war has lifted somewhat? There is no need to foster an adversary relationship, because I don't do that.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

One thing we learned from Vietnam and other wars is that body counts is not always the best indicator of how a war is going and how it will end. It’s not like wars are decided by a winning score. There are so many other factors that affect the different sides’ ability and will to fight.

So, regardless of how many casualties there are on both sides or how many pieces of equipment have been destroyed, it seems like Russia has the larger problem with force generation and morale. Russia has had to resort to prisoners, conscripts, and forced mobilization for troops. Those troops are poorly trained and not well equipped. And they are unmotivated. Ukraine is not having those problems, at least not to that degree.

 

[jderimig]

Casualty comparisons by numbers only is not the whole story. Its the quality of soldiers lost that is important. If Russia throws prisoners and fresh conscripts into the meat grinder and Ukraine is losing quality solders at a 1 to 10 ratio that may be a problem for the UKR fighting force. Russian strategist may think a 5-1 casualty loss is winning.

 

[boatgeek]

Right, Milley did say 100k dead and injured on both sides. I know that. And it was a far more credible number many times higher than Ukraine itself has admitted to. But I continue to stand by my suggestion of over 375K total casualties because I have other sources based on counts from local obituaries, hospitals, morgues and cemeteries.

You can continue to disparage 100% everything I say as 100% false. But you know that's not right. Instead of doubling down on personal hate and attack, why not cool it and see what the numbers actually say when the fog of war has lifted somewhat? There is no need to foster an adversary relationship, because I don't do that.

If you would share your sources, I would evaluate and consider them. Then we could have a discussion about the quality of your source. Unfortunately, you have not chosen to report your source in any way that anyone else can have a reasonable discussion about them. When you have reported sources, it is often clear that you are grossly misrepresenting what the source says.

Is it personal to blatant dishonest reporting as such? Maybe so. Maybe you might want to consider why people often say that you are blatantly dishonest in your reporting.

 

[Dotini]

people often say that you are blatantly dishonest in your reporting.

You say I am blatantly dishonest with my "reporting" and that other people often say so too. Is that entirely a true fact - or just an opinion? Either way, that hurts! But I'm not a reporter. I'm a 75 year-old Boeing retiree and model rocketeer who humbly posts personal opinions and reports by outside sources. If I am shown to be incorrect either in my opinion or in my factual claims, I should (and will) acknowledge that and apologize. But there is a big difference in the expression of an opinion and an outside source's reporting of an alleged fact. Now, there's whole lot of opinion floating around here, including yours, a lot of "narrative", and very few proven facts. When I post a "report" or the claim of a contested fact, I should always include a link. So should all of us. When I state an opinion, I usually say IMHO or some other such qualifier. So should all of us.

 

[boatgeek]

You say I am blatantly dishonest with my "reporting" and that other people often say so too. Is that entirely a true fact - or just an opinion? Either way, that hurts! But I'm not a reporter. I'm a 75 year-old Boeing retiree and model rocketeer who humbly posts personal opinions and reports by outside sources. If I am shown to be incorrect either in my opinion or in my factual claims, I should (and will) acknowledge that and apologize. But there is a big difference in the expression of an opinion and an outside source's reporting of an alleged fact. Now, there's whole lot of opinion floating around here, including yours, a lot of "narrative", and very few proven facts. When I post a "report" or the claim of a contested fact, I should always include a link. So should all of us. When I state an opinion, I usually say IMHO or some other such qualifier. So should all of us.

OK, so prove me wrong and report. You say that you have a source for that reports Ukraine's casualties by combing local news and the like. What is it? You've been challenged three or four times on that, and you haven't produced a link. So go ahead and do that.

Right, Milley did say 100k dead and injured on both sides. I know that. And it was a far more credible number many times higher than Ukraine itself has admitted to. But I continue to stand by my suggestion of over 375K total casualties because I have other sources based on counts from local obituaries, hospitals, morgues and cemeteries.

OK, you have a source, cite it so that we can review its reliability.

You can continue to disparage 100% everything I say as 100% false. But you know that's not right. Instead of doubling down on personal hate and attack, why not cool it and see what the numbers actually say when the fog of war has lifted somewhat? There is no need to foster an adversary relationship, because I don't do that.

I did not say that 100% of what you say is 100% false. I said that you often don't cite sources, and when you do, you often misrepresent what the source says. It's also a habit of yours to fall back on "who really knows what's going on" after being called on misreporting a source. Those are facts. I will keep further opinions to myself at this time.

You're right that we should post links to back up sources. I'll try to be better about that in the future. Here's the one I referred to earlier, from the Norwegians:

https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...000-dead-or-wounded-in-ukraine-norwegian-army
It's interesting to compare the numbers reported for Ukraine ("more than 100K" killed and wounded) and Russia ("beginning to approach 180K" killed and wounded) with the Milley estimate from November (both sides "more than 100K" killed and wounded). Obviously, Ukraine has taken casualties since November, and the way it is phrased is a low bound of Ukraine's casualties and a high bound for Russia's. That's a great example of carefully choosing words for political reasons. It's not exactly lying, but there's a broad range of numbers that are consistent with what he said.

 

[cwbullet]

Please temper the politics and confronation. One member had been banned form the thread, and the next step will be to lock it.

 

[KenECoyote]

I don't think Putin can use Nukes. The Russian thugs have robbed their economy blind for the last 30 years. The US spends more annually in keeping our nuclear forces maintained, than Russia spends on their entire armed forces annually. Nuclear weapons require extensive maintenance costs. They have let their navy go un-maintained until it is a joke. Same with the army. Why would you spend huge amounts on a weapon system that you don't plan to use - one that if you use will be the end of your country.

Also Russia is very much behind with their aircraft. They have no stealth technology. There "wonder ABM system" , the S400 has performed poorly in Ukraine allowing what appears to be Ukraine drones to destroy strategic bombers at the larger strategic air base inside Russia.

At the same time, it has been recently reported that a joint US/Israeli group flew right up to the border of Iran totally undetected - and possibly inside the border using F35s. Iran uses Russian anti aircraft systems

Some think that NATO has a first strike plan using stealth technology to completely neutralize the Russian land based ICBM system using conventional weapons.

Their ballistic sub fleet says at the dock 50 % of the time. Their newest ballistic sub had so may problems launching missiles, that the it was put in service, after tests showed that 60% failure to launch. They have so few operating ballistic subs available, that you can bet each one has multiple US fast attack subs ready to sink them instantly if necessary.

Their bomber fleet would be likely 100 % destroyed by F22s based in Norway and THADs that can reach into space also based in Norway.. The US has constantly developed new technology over the last 30 years and the Russian thugs have robbed the country during that same time.

If war should break out it would a be disaster, but if it started tit for tat, and if the USA and NATO had some balls, the technology is there to make a first strike a much better option than waiting for a full launch. MAD may not be a truism with one side having the technology advantage the West had at this time.

Putin knows this .

Yes and this is with the U.S. weapons that the public is aware of. How long was the SR-71 kept secret?

 

[teepot]

I don't think that Putin would use a nuke no matter what we sent to Ukraine. He has to know it would be the end of Russia/Soviet Union. Now China attacking Taiwan. That could go an almost WW3 way. With Taiwan it's self, they have a few countries on their side. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and the US. North Korea might come in on China's side. And that crazy guy might just see a nuke as a way for change as good for him. I don't see China going nuclear either.

 

[KenECoyote]

I don't think that Putin would use a nuke no matter what we sent to Ukraine. He has to know it would be the end of Russia/Soviet Union. Now China attacking Taiwan. That could go an almost WW3 way. With Taiwan it's self, they have a few countries on their side. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and the US. North Korea might come in on China's side. And that crazy guy might just see a nuke as a way for change as good for him. I don't see China going nuclear either.

I agree. At this point China is too reliant on the U.S. and other NATO countries to be importers of their goods. The risk of crashing their economy for a small island is too costly.

Additionally Russia doing so poorly in Ukraine has to give them second thought about actually invading Taiwan. They would also have to take Kuwait as a lesson.

To me, their constant harassment of Taiwan is mostly just a bully wanting something and constantly testing to see how far they can step and then checking for the reactions.

 

[Dotini]

Seymour Hersh has recently warned that the US has a Plan B should Ukraine's defenses break and begin to crumble. He reportedly has said that units of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions are now close to the Ukraine border. US troops already in place in Europe would directly enter the conflict to prevent Ukraine from losing the war, he suggests.

The U.S. could get directly involved in the Ukraine conflict if it sees that Kiev’s forces are on the back foot, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh suggested on Tuesday.

Speaking at an event in Washington, DC hosted by the Committee for the Republic, a non-profit organization, Hersh noted that the U.S. “did stupid things” during the Vietnam War, and suggested that Washington could “start doing something else” in the Ukraine conflict.

“I do not know what happens if it goes bad for Ukraine, you have all this manpower,” he said, pointing out that the U.S. has dispatched units of its 82nd and 101st elite airborne divisions close to the Ukrainian border, while “a lot of weapons and arms are coming” to Europe.

“I am told the game is going to be: this is NATO, we are supporting NATO in offensive operations against the Russians, which is not going to fool the world. It is us fighting Russia,” Hersh stressed, without disclosing his sources.

According to Hersh, “the big deal” is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to come to an agreement with the Ukrainian government. “The deal is demilitarize, and it is going to be a no-go for us,” the journalist said, adding that the Russian leader “has not put in his main force yet” in the conflict.

Summing up the Ukraine conflict, Hersh argued that “we just may be kidding ourselves what is going on there and what the results are going to be.”

https://countercurrents.org/2023/03/he-did-it-seymour-hersh-slams-biden-as-nord-stream-bomber/

Spoiler: 7 minute Wion video on the subject of Plan B

 

[boatgeek]

Seymour Hersh has recently warned that the US has a Plan B should Ukraine's defenses break and begin to crumble. He reportedly has said that units of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions are now close to the Ukraine border. US troops already in place in Europe would directly enter the conflict to prevent Ukraine from losing the war, he suggests.


https://countercurrents.org/2023/03/he-did-it-seymour-hersh-slams-biden-as-nord-stream-bomber/

Spoiler: 7 minute Wion video on the subject of Plan B

Oh my. This is the same Seymour Hersh that sourced his entire accusation that the US was behind the Nord Stream sabotage on a single person? One who was highly placed in the State Department, CIA, Norwegian Ministry of Defense, and the commercial diving industry? And that a ship that had already been scrapped was a key part of the plot? Ooookay, so I'm not sure why we would believe him now, especially when his source is "I am told." By who? Do they know anything? Is the source Batman just like his source for the Nord Stream accusations?

According to Hersh, “the big deal” is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to come to an agreement with the Ukrainian government. “The deal is demilitarize, and it is going to be a no-go for us,” the journalist said, adding that the Russian leader “has not put in his main force yet” in the conflict.

Uh, try again. Russia has made that offer several times before. "Give us everything we want and we'll stop bombing you." For some reason, Ukraine turned that down. Maybe because they don't want to become a client state like Belarus? Maybe they don't want to negotiate with terrorists? Hard to say.

Oh, and according to the UK's defense secretary, Russia has committed 97% of its army to Ukraine. So that 3% must be a heck of a main force.

 

[Dotini]

In news highly distinctive of direct US-Russia conflict is the widely reported downing of a US drone over the Black Sea.

ABC news reports Russian ships are circling the crash site and gathering pieces.




Elsewhere, from the point of view of our enemy,

Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of Russia’s Security Council, said in televised remarks the drone incident was “another confirmation” of direct U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin has repeatedly said the United States and other NATO members have become direct war participants by supplying weapons and intelligence to the Kyiv government and pressuring it not to negotiate peace.

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-drone-pentagon-9f4b3e8fdd719c0fa91a0683228b9e51

 

[user 30299]

In news highly distinctive of direct US-Russia conflict is the widely reported downing of a US drone over the Black Sea.

ABC news reports Russian ships are circling the crash site and gathering pieces.




Elsewhere, from the point of view of our enemy,

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-drone-pentagon-9f4b3e8fdd719c0fa91a0683228b9e51

It's only a "point of view" when they're not lies . . . . just sayin'

 

[Dotini]

Reports vary as to the location of the Reaper incident. If this incident is to become a new flashpoint of escalation to WW3, then we should look into where the incident actually took place. The video below shows where CNN places it, and where the RF claims. Actual video from the drone may provide a clue.