The report is true. The landings were recorded on CCTV.

https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1859535662539526551

It was even expected. A few days ago, Ukrainian intelligence informed the public that a non-standard missile attack was likely coming. They had seen launch preparations in Astrakhan and speculated that a liquid-fuel ICBM would be launched with multiple hypersonic glide vehicles.

Apparently, multiple shots of something considerably more dumb - what seems like six ICBMs with dummy warheads (alternatively a single missile with six warheads, each with six penetration aids) - rained down on Dnipro. It seems that air defense didn’t even fire, no chance of intercepting and what’s the point.

I guess this must be Putin’s language for “don’t poke our command centers” (Ukrainians recently attacked the command center of Russia’s army group north). I guess Ukrainians can decipher what he means and won’t torch the Kremlin, but will keep poking command centers.

I read it, thanks for linking. Ranked intelligence officers typically get exchanged, and sometimes the hostage they’re exchanged against is indeed a random person seized for the purpose of having someone.

That’s lamentable, as it’s nothing close to justice - the maximum sentence they get to serve is a few years (the time of negotiations). There’s no elegant solution. One half-solution would be banning the travel of civilians into a country which might be plotting to seize someone for exchanging. Most countries recognize that people sometimes have valid reasons to visit hostile countries (e.g. family members living there) and don’t practise it.

Meanwhile, hired crooks with no fixed relationship with the hiring government, they typically get abandoned by their clients.

If guilt is proven and the captain gets convicted, subsequent steps depend on whether he has a military rank in FSB or GRU. If yes, eventually we’ll hear of whom Russia is willing to give in return for his release. However, if he gets convicted and is a random civilian hired for dirty work, they won’t even wave him goodbye.

And of course, whether he gets convicted depends on whether evidence can be found.

However, making companies pay (seizing the ship and goods until arrangements are found) is a different story. It happens so rarely that I can’t predict the outcome.

Ukraine has been with primarily American support.

Did you check this link?

https://protectukrainenow.org/en/report

The problem with your statement: it’s too simple and thus simply false. The sum of support from other allies considerably exceeds US support. The US is the biggest among donors however, and that is a great amount of support.

People often tend to oversimplify the picture. People also tend to memorize the state of affairs at some moment, and assume too long that the same snapshot still applies. The US fell behind when Biden’s bill spent months being stuck in Congress (and lots of it is spent domestically anyway - to replace the supplies being sent to Ukraine - sometimes with newer articles, e.g. ATACMS with PrSM). The US also seems to have something at hand which prevents sending any fixed-wing combat aircraft (my guess: state secrets). After some trying, the sides seem to have agreed that US tanks aren’t appropriate for Ukraine, so they sent only a handful and stopped. However, again after some trying, US infantry fighting vehicles are highly sought after, and they’ve been sending a lot. For some reason, the US is unable to send appreciable amounts of self-propelled artillery guns. But it more than made up by sending towed guns and ammo for guns.

Meanwhile, some European countries which were surprised and unprepared at first (e.g. Germany) have become high-ranking donors in the table, because they got their industry started eventually. Going by percentages of GDP however, one can observe that the biggest contributions relative to their own weight are from countries closer to Russia - other invasion candidates are contributing very seriously.

My guess: if responsibility is proven, the owner of the ship will pay for fixing the cables (note: according to some sources, the ship has recently been transfered to a new owner). If they can credibly explain how it was an accident, they have a small chance of their insurer helping them pay.

Employees like the captain may indeed get convicted and jailed, and subsequently may get exchanged.

Typically, if a spy agency sends a ranked employee and he’s busted, they will try to exchange him. However, if a spy agency hires a rando and he’s busted, they typically leave him high and dry.

“it’s a shame a country on the other side of the world isn’t doing enough to stop this”.

The US is not a totally random country, but one signatory of the Budapest memorandum (giving Ukraine security guarantees in return for Ukraine giving away nuclear weapons).

As for levels of support - I advise taking a look at this website. You may notice some surprising patterns.

Some additional background:

Previous reports indicated that a Danish naval vessel was trailing the “Yi Peng 3” and subsequent reports said that Danish vessels had surrounded the cargo ship. Apparently they were waiting for paperwork to be finished.

The cargo ship behaved erratically and switched off its AIS transponder while passing through a region where two data cables were recently damaged under the Baltic Sea.

The incident is not entirely isolated - last autumn, another Chinese-owned cargo ship, the NewNew Polar Bear was photographed entering a Russian harbour without one anchor shortly after the BalticConnector gas pipeline had been severed between Estonia and Finland and the “EE-S1” data cable damaged between Estonia and Sweden. The ship’s anchor was later recovered from the site of gas pipeline damage.

P.S. Apparently I’m a bit absent-minded, and the sentencing was recently reported about in this thread, where a considerable amount of discussion also followed.

It’s sad to note that people in Hong Kong have lost their fight for democracy, and are being repressed for trying what they could.

Some notes, to help folks stay better informed:

• Ukraine has been firing ATACMS into “Russia” (occupied and annexed Crimea) for a good year already, without World War 3 breaking out

• Ukraine has its own missiles too (mostly cruise, not ballistic, but they had at least a few dozen Soviet-made “Tochka” SRBMs) and they’ve been firing those at high value targets in Russia from day one of getting invaded, it’s simply that their supplies of Tochka have almost entirely run out, and their home-grown missile industry is a big fat target for Russian attacks (despite which Ukraine produces missiles, but currently not ballistic missiles of a practically usable sort)

• ATACMS is effective and practical, with a cluster warhead it has shown ability of taking out Russian air defense batteries (S-400 and such), which are difficult targets to attack

• this time too, air defense failed to stop them and they caused secondary detonations at a large ammunition storage site

• since Russia is still attempting to conquer Ukraine, now with added North Korean soldiers sent by their dictator, there continues to be plentiful ground for other countries to supply Ukraine with more advanced stuff to fire at the invaders, lest they invade more of Ukraine or start invading elsewhere

• foreign ballistic missiles that Russia has fired into Ukraine include North Korean and Iranian missiles, so foreign-made BMs flying about is ordinary stuff in this war

As far as I read, he had a leg spinal injury and an operation scheduled (bad stuff for a ballet dancer - you can’t work with an injured leg spine) and was experiencing difficulties with alcohol and painkillers (the latter for the injury). He might have felt that his career was doomed.

As far as I read, he called his girlfriend (or maybe ex-wife, as the article suggests) and asked her to visit him. When she arrived, he had already fallen.

He was characterized as optimistic and nobody had noticed a death wish. Then again, during injury, pain, inability to work, (self-)medication and maybe withdrawal symptoms, other people’s predictions of character may not entirely apply to every person.

The balcony was described as not the safest place on Earth. It doesn’t require a detective to suspect that being under the influence of strong painkillers might increase the risk.

He can’t be characterized as an opposition figure, or a figure of power. There is no clear beneficiary or motive.

As for war and statements against it - he was an artist, a dancer in a publicly funded theatre, and limited by that in what he could say without losing his job. Since it seems that he had reasonable political opinions, inability to voice them without experiencing retribution probably didn’t make him cheerful.

Level 3000 hack: compromise security with drone fleas that jump onto drone dogs.

Level 9000 hack: join the pack with a drone attack dog.

In this video you can see soldiers patrolling the borders with rifles and dogs and using drones to scan the area, what’s your definition of heavily armed?

The clue here is that soldiers typically don’t have dogs - their job is not tracking anyone. The folks you see are probably border guards. (Another clue is that soldiers would be expected to carry at least one proper machine gun per squad, items like grenades and grenade launchers, etc.)

The ukrainian military also have checkpoints in the west border to make sure any male between 18 and 60 doesn’t leave the country so that they can be forced into war.

In the west, you should expect to find the border guard. They are capable of checking databases and patrolling in nature, but aren’t heavily armed. And tens of thousands of guys have taken leave on their own, despite anything the border guard can do. If one doesn’t like the draft, one hikes out via the Carpathian mountains.

As for the draft, yes, it’s a real thing. Of course it’s unjust, people should be able to live in peace - hence no agressor should invade any land. Having to take up weapons sucks. But when a war on this scale gets started, states will draft soldiers into their armies. Many will dodge it. Since hundreds of thousands of soldiers are needed, lots of mistakes will be made, and will be sorted out later (units don’t actually want soldiers who aren’t capable of fighting).

Ultimately, who was called up but absolutely doesn’t want to fight, must choose among these roles:

• emigree
• medical personnel
• defense industry
• logistics
• dodger
• jailed dodger

Obviously, everyone is not competent to become a medic. The remaining positions are attainable. So, in the end, it’s mostly people willing to fight at least somewhat, who end up fighting. Some of them get disillusioned and desert, however. That’s normal too, in a large war that lasts long. I don’t hold it against them.

I’m not from Ukraine, and not a military person, but I cooperate with military people, supplying drones and stuff that helps bring hostile drones down (profit is not involved). So inevitably I do know the approximate situation.

I’ve read some things by Malatesta before (not much from Goldman), so thanks for the reading tips. There is a nuance, though. Once some country has started a conquest attempt, any disarmament will only give them victory. Disarmament is only possible when it’s mutual, and then I fully support it. The article by Goldman that you suggested seems to originate from 1915, when World War I was being fought in Europe. I remind that World War I had no clear agressor, and indeed, anarchists of all countries tried to overthrow the ruling regimes (which were mostly undemocratic, frequently dictatorial and imperial).

The current situation somewhat differs. There is a clear agressor, which happens to be a dictatorship and an empire, supported by other dictatorships and a messed up theocracy. There happens to be a clearly defined victim of agression, which happens to be mostly democratic, supported by places that are reasonably democratic. I believe that if Malatesta lived today, I could convince him to start a charity that supplies Ukrainians. :)

I hope for revolutionary conditions to arise in Russia, but that will be a long wait. My comrades there tried and lost, they’ve mostly emigrated by now. Some are imprisoned, some still keep trying (I can’t estimate what the percentages are, people don’t talk openly of such things), but there are approximately 4 times as much cops per capita in Russia compared to a normal country, so their chances are miserable.

If you are sure about something, then bring evidence of considerable off-label activities.

In response to your response about “Nordic Response”:

Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”

Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?

An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you’d expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn’t send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn’t learn how to deter those, they’re fools.

How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There’s a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the “saboteurs”, good. If the red team “blew up” all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don’t practise, they don’t get to think hard.

While the ability to counteract styrofoam pollution is of course good, sadly this doesn’t apply to other plastics in general. Some plastics are physically hard or chemically much harder to break than polystyrene (PP, PVC, ABS, anything that it fiber reinforced) .

So, while the worms are nice, one should not hope they can help with other plastics.

Based on this, I conclude: the NATO of today is a mostly defensive alliance with some taints in its history.

It is currently very busy doing a real job - opposing a conquering dictator named Vladimir Putin.

I wish it luck, as long as it sticks to its declared purpose. If it oversteps, I will revise my opinion.

The EU has by now significantly outpaid the US, and out-supported the US in Ukraine. However, for historical reasons, it lacks certain items which Ukrainians badly need (tactical ballistic missiles and anti-missile defense, to bring good examples).

On the matter of aircraft, I should especially emphasize that EU countries have given fighter aircraft, but the US has not. The US is currently attempting to get through the bureaucracy of approving a Swedish AWACS aircraft (with some US components) going to Ukraine.

Educate thyself here, military people use this resource and approve of it:

https://protectukrainenow.org/en/report

So, NATO had a problematic operation, trying to establish (and coordinate the establishment of) guerilla stay-behind troops to use in the event of Soviet takeover - and the operation went especially problematic in Italy during the Years of Lead, where some of those guys associated with right-wing terrorists. The year was 1969 or so.

Basing on this, how do I conclude anything about the NATO of today?

Disclaimer: I was asked to hold an anti NATO speech during a protest event during a NATO summit. Being a moderately honest anarchist, I held a speech denouncing the practises seen in Afghanistan (the year was 2012), but emphasized that collective self defense is a valuable thing to have (a common attitude here in Eastern Europe), and added that if the alliance would bother doing what it says on the sticker, I would support it.

NATO is an alliance of various countries. Some of them aren’t nice or democratic (classic example: Turkey). Mixed bag, and constantly changing. Membership in NATO is not a letter of indulgence for a member state to do anything - allies are obliged to help only if someone attacks a member state. If a NATO member attacks someone else, allies can ignore the affair or even oppose the member (example: Turkey recently bombed Kurdish troops in Syria so sloppily that threatened US troops shot down a Turkish drone).

In his shoes, I would think twice - does their team really want to present their dirtiest laundry to the world - such as owing an election to a media oligarch?

As for the EU, it’s a massive bureaucracy which still follows its own laws. It probably won’t change track. There is no single person to change its track.

However, at this stage of the game, I have the nagging feeling that some American may downregulate Elon Musk directly, far before the EU manages to step on his precious toe.

A note about Taiwan. Allegedly, Putin asked Musk for a favour for Xi - to refuse Starlink for Taiwan.

Coincidentally, negotiations between Taiwan and Starlink broke down. The Guardian reported about it on October 15:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/15/taiwan-to-have-satellite-internet-service-as-protection-in-case-of-chinese-attack

“Starlink is not available in Taiwan after negotiations reportedly fell apart over Taiwan’s requirement that a local entity have a majority share of any joint venture established.”

A person experienced in investigating such matters would take a look at the ownership structure of other Starlink local representatives, and see if Taiwan had unusually harsh demands or Musk was unusually stiff while negotiating with them. If Taiwan had harsh demands, it is plausible that no favour was done. If Musk was unusually stiff, then it’s plausible that the favour was done as requested.

As a happy user of Signal (no bugs or incidents from my viewpoint), I regardless chime in to say a word for decentralization. :)

Signal is centralized:

• there is a single Signal implementation, with a single developing entity
• you have to install its mobile version before you may run the desktop version

There exist protocols like Tox which go a step beyond Signal and offer more freedom -> have multiple clients from diverse makers (some of them unstable), don’t have centralized registration, and don’t rely on servers to distribute messages - only to distribute contact information.

In the grand comparison table of protocols (not clients), Tox is among the few lines that’s all green (Signal has one red square).