Yeah, because it was a shit system that would inevitably implode. No one except for the laissez-faire types thought this would happen (so 99% of them thought so). Only Rothbard (ancap) wrote about what was going to happen.
You would've killed eachother if America wasn't involved? After WWI/WWII you couldn't figure that war with eachother is bad? We should've left you for yourselves (while selling products to you). America could've been the based trinket seller, but instead had to get involved in your affairs.
Probably consolidate their gains down south, secure the cities they taken, then try and eliminate the main Ukie army in the east.
I'm not claiming that it's the only factor, just that it's an important factor. Most of those countries aren't trying to keep up with the US in the same way that the Soviet Union did. Including North Korea who mostly just makes noise in their own small pond, and even then North Korean would be better off spending its resources improving its civil situation over trying to develop long range missiles and nukes.
No, they couldn't seeing as the Yugoslav Wars happened, and Greece has had quite the tensions with Turkey over the years.
I keep expecting something to happen at Zhaporizhye because it would both be a valuable objective for Russia, and a likely staging area for a Ukrainian counterattack, but nothing ever happens.
They probably don't want to advance on Zaporizhzhia until they can try and reach it from the west, like Kiev it's divided by the Dnieper, and trying to take a city without first encircling it to prevent reinforcements and supplies getting in is neigh impossible without suffering utterly horrific casualties.
Thats not a particularly practical battlefield drone setup, there's way better options than just slapping a regular rifle on one, makes me wonder if its just a tech demonstration. The whole setup just seems gimmicky as fuck.
Yes, but that works both ways which is why I'm surprised Russia hasn't attempted it. South from there, is all Russia held ground, and you pretty much have to go all the way up to Dnipro in order to find another crossing. Let's say one of the besieged Ukrainian forces in the South East pulled off a miracle and managed to completely break one of the sieges. It would be a lot easier to regroup with the rest of the Ukrainian forces if they still held Zaporizhzhia, and it would also give the Ukrainian military a chance to capitalize on the victory by launching counterattacks against other besieged cities. Likewise, Dnipro is kind of a high-risk crossing for either side due to the layout of the city and bridges. There are a lot of places either side could get pocketed in and end up in an absolute massacre.
Its pretty much just internal political showmanship in the usual military contracts. Making a drone that uses an infantry arm can be proposed as a weapon system that can be maintained by existing armorers and tools, repaired and replaced with existing infrastructure, and already has known effectiveness on targets. All of which is completely irrelevant to its combat effectiveness, but sounds great to a budget board when you're looking for more cash to make something less shit, or just grift.
Yeah, but you'd literally be better off just having it with a little hopper full of grenades instead of a rifle. Plus that mounting looks like a prototype, and not a particularly solid option.
"Our porn stars wear protection from bullets, not just STDs. Don't just fuck in bed but also Russians on the battlefield" (Zelenskyyy introducing the PornStar Ace Awards, 2023)
Lol. How does this idiot think that ANY nuclear power would respond to literally the rest of the world attacking its soil at once? That would stay non nuclear for about two days at best.
