#Russian threats to Europe

[latestnews-now]

UK intelligence chief Richard Moore has accused Russia of conducting a dangerously reckless sabotage campaign across Europe and warned that a Russian victory in Ukraine could embolden adversaries worldwide. Learn how MI6 and French intelligence are working to counter this threat. Discover the global implications and why Western unity is critical in this escalating crisis. Stay informed – watch now!

[tomorrowusa]

It's was 800 days ago that Putin began his 3-day "special operation" in Ukraine. In addition to the war crimes and attempted genocide in Ukraine, Russia has managed to inflict quite a bit of harm upon itself.

We may not know for sure until after the war how many Russians died or were seriously wounded in Putin's sociopathic illegal war of aggression, but France has an estimate which surpasses those of other NATO sources.

French Foreign Minister Stéphane Sèjourné stated that France estimates Russia has suffered 500,000 military casualties – both killed and wounded – since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. [ ... ] On the possibility of NATO troop deployments, the minister echoed French President Macron’s stance, stating Europe must overtly warn Russia that when continental peace and European security are threatened, no option is off the table. However, Sèjourné stressed France’s relations with Russia remain “based on mutual respect between our peoples,” even as he condemned the “reckless” Russian authorities disregarding international laws and human lives.

Putin is ramping up aggressive acts against the West.

Russia blamed for GPS interference affecting flights in Europe

German foreign minister says Russia will face consequences for monthslong cyber espionage

To Putin, who still mourns the collapse of the totalitarian Soviet Union, the Cold War never ended.

Putin's invasion shows that he will violate treaties and international agreements to achieve his revanchist goals. There's no reason to expect him to honor any new agreements regarding Ukraine.

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

Quote: "We had a meeting with the commander of the Lithuanian State Border Guard Service, and together with our team we discussed not only closing the border with Belarus, but also other options, including closing the border with Russia, as there may be various threats, and we must be ready."(..)

P.S. Very good point: Russians use open borders for people smuggling, infiltration of Russian spies and Islamist terrorists, and Russian and Western businessmen who do business with the Kremlin help finance war and hostile activities against the West. A total CLOSING of the border is really necessary…

The best option would be if Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway also completely closed their borders with war criminal countries...

[die-katholische-kirche]

most populated country in Europe (+evil sidekkick states (austria)) Most visible on social media platform: 😯😯

One thing i will say all us europeans love hiding where we’re really from on this website EXCEPT germans. They’ll regularly be like oh ja that’s my blörbö karsten from ubernatürlich btw how do you eat your würst oh mein gott are you seriös???

[munaeem]

Europe's Dependence on the United States for Security

Europe’s dependence on the United States for security has been a topic of considerable debate and analysis. This reliance can be traced back to historical, political, and strategic factors that have shaped the transatlantic relationship for decades. This document seeks to explore the reasons behind Europe’s reliance on the U.S., the perception of the Russian threat, NATO’s response, Germany’s…

[gurutrends]

Europe must prepare for a Russian threat to Poland and the Baltic states - Zelensky

Europe must prepare for a Russian threat to Poland and the Baltic states – Zelensky According to the Ukrainian president, Putin will try to drag Belarus into the war. After an interview with David Lammy, the British Foreign Secretary, Volodymyr Zelensky declared: “Taking into account Putin’s ambitions and what we see today, when he does everything not to stop this war, the fact is that he will go…

[dailyworldecho]

[tamamita]

why do zionists always assume its antisemitic to think that zionism a settler colonial idea

Modern Zionists aren't actually well-read into their own history. I could invoke the likes of Theodore Herlz, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, David Ben Gurion, and many other political Zionists and how they were ardent supporters of settler colonialism, yet it wouldn't get through their head, because they genuinely believe the land of Palestine is their right to claim, despite the people inhabitating the area. But to claim that the establishment of the Settler state was necessary due to antisemitism is not correct.

The pogrom of the Jewish people in the Pale of Settlement in Imperial Russia resulted in the mass displacement of Jews. But most Jews did not flee to Palestine, but to the US and Western Europe to live relatively better lives, due to the French revolution and so on. They had no desire whatsoever to move to Palestine due to its harsh climate and environment. Although the repression of Jews in the 19th century added to Zionism's appeal, Zionism did not emerge because of it as is often portrayed.

Jewish historian Michael Stanislawiski explains:

The first expression of this new ideology were published well before the spread of the new anti-semitic ideology and before the pogroms of the ealy 1880s. The fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution.

-- Zionism, a short introduction (Stanislawski, 2017)

As was the case for that time, the doctrine of nationalism became prevalent across Europe. Many versions of it gained hold of European intellectuals and the upper-classes. One of these were ethnonationalism, which emphasised common ancestry. Such a view was popular among Germans, Hungarians, Russians, Poles and etc, who saw their "tribes" as being distinct, and therefore needed to be preserved from foreign threats. Zionism would mirror some of these aspects, which was prevalent in Eastern Europe. The founding father of Revisionist Zionism (and the precursor to the Likud party), Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated:

"The creation of a Jewish majority, was the fundamental aim of Zionism, the term "Jewish State", means a Jewish majority and Palestine will become a Jewish country at the moment when it has a Jewish majority".

-- Zionism, and the Arabs, 1882-1948 A study of ideology (Yosef Gorny, 1987)

However, there was another ideology emerging which was far more popular among the oppressed Jewish people, which would propell them to emancipate themselves where they lived. Revolutionary Socialism.

According Ilan Pappe, the doctrine of Zionism was vehemently opposed by Jewish leaders all around Europe on the basis of Talmudic violations, the rise of revolutionary socialism and the rise of Jewish assimilationism. Additionally, in a conference in Frankfurt, rabbis decided to omit the mentioning of "the return" from Jewish prayers as a reaction to Zionism. However, Zionism would face intense opposition from Socialist Jews, especially the Bundists, who openly declared Zionism to be anti-Socialist, opportunistic and reactionary. Zionism was an alien idea, and revolutionary socialism emphasised the importance of the liberation of Jews where they lived, resulting in an ideological feud between the Bundists and Political Zionists. Even the likes of the Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the Settler state, and David Ben Gurion, the first PM of the settler state, would condemn the Bundists for their opposition to Political Zionism.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[BBC is UK State Media]

Vladimir Putin says Russia would consider an attack from a non-nuclear state that was backed by a nuclear-armed one to be a "joint attack", in what could be construed as a threat to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine.

In key remarks on Wednesday night, the Russian president said his government was considering changing the rules and preconditions around which Russia would use its nuclear arsenal.

Ukraine is a non-nuclear state that receives military support from the US and other nuclear-armed countries.

His comments come as Kyiv seeks approval to use long-range Western missiles against military sites in Russia.[...]

A new nuclear doctrine would "clearly set the conditions for Russia to transition to using nuclear weapons," he warned - and said such scenarios included conventional missile strikes against Moscow.

He said that Russia would consider such a "possibility" of using nuclear weapons if it detected the start of a massive launch of missiles, aircraft and drones into its territory, which presented a "critical threat" to the country's sovereignty.[...]

In June, Putin delivered a warning to European countries supporting Ukraine, saying Russia had “many more [tactical nuclear weapons] than there are on the European continent, even if the United States brings theirs over.”

“Europe does not have a developed [early warning system],” he added. “In this sense they are more or less defenceless.”

25 Sep 24

[iamthetruenhaz]

Russia's prep work

I originally wrote this as a reply to a reddit comment about the prep work Putin's Russia has done to reconquer Eastern Europe (and Central Asia) and soften up the West in order to "reclaim" the "lost" global power status the USSR had.

Putin* has been prepping his "reconquering" of Eastern Europe and Central Asia since he stepped into office. He took on an openly anti-western course since the Munich speech in 2007. He probably saw American global dominance weakening following Afghanistan and Iraq and because Russia had stabilised after the 90s, he thought it was time to act.

First he paved the way with the Chechen war where he "won" and got to jump on the War on terror bandwagon and use Islamic terrorism as a boogeyman for his own imperialistic purpose to rile up Russians against external threats.

Then he invaded Georgia to probe the soil and see how the west would react. They mostly ignored him so he went on to meddle in Eastern European politics, coerce Ukraine for gas and fund right-wing parties all across Europe (at the time mostly to drive a wedge between Eastern and Western Europe and suck EE countries back into Russian orbit) while pumping anti-western sentiment and Soviet nostalgia at home.

He saw that the west was disunited because of the US-UK-EU split following the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria. He capitalized on that in several ways using both the wars and the refugee crisis that followed. One, to increase racist and nationalist propaganda and stir up hatred against "the liberal gay western cabal" and the resulting Euroscepticism. Two, to prop up the "proper" traditionalist Russia as an alternative. Three, to paint Eastern European countries as a puppet of the US liberals who were "ackschually" nazis in disguise, which was easy when the West was divided between trying to coax them into the EU and leaving them as a buffer-zone backwater. The brightest example of the latter was in late 2021 when Lukashenko started dumping Middle Eastern migrants on the Polish border so the Poles could be painted as a racist, white supremacist state. Unlike, you know, Belarus (really Russia) which weaponized the migrants.

Then he failed in Ukraine when his puppet's sharp turn away from a planned EU accession path caused the Euromaidan revolts. Pro-Russian protesters soon spawned, staging provications (my own country had a wave of protests and pro-russian counter-protests back then and I remember neonazis and other paid protesters being at the forefronts). Russian media started hurling accusations of nazism against pro-western protesters.

All of a sudden, it's like a switch was flipped in Russian society. Decommunization was out the window. In 2015, Stalin was chosen as the most influential figure in *world* history by Russians. All the anti-Western, Russian irredentist, traditionalist, racist and homophobic sentiments coalesced into one, directed against the "evil nazi gay jewish West". Putin started openly provoking the West with displays of military force, close flybys in territorial waters, playing Cuban missile crisis in Kaliningrad. All to rack up the atmosphere of an imminent Cold War II and maybe even WWIII where a "wronged", "humiliated" Russia would finally make the West pay. The WWII victory celebrations also took on the appearance of a war cult, with jingoistic slogans like "we can do it again", "to Berlin" and "we're coming for the German women" displayed on every 9th May parade. Eastern European countries, especially the Baltics and Poland, noticed and tried to raise alarm, but were mostly told to keep their paranoia down and ignored.

In the last decade, he used his military and propaganda machine (what we call "hybrid warfare") to create the impression of the following: (1) The West is imperialist (and is being hypocritical about it), waging pointless bloody wars in the Middle East; (2) The West is weak in those wars, causing Russia to step in like in Syria and deal with the issue "properly"; (3) Western democracies are weak in dealing with "barbaric" refugees because they're too greedy not to let them in but too soft to throw the bad apples out (this was used to boost nationalism and Euroscepticism).

By those means, Russian propaganda managed to manipulate both anti-imperialist and nationalist groups within the West as well as in Russia and Eastern Europe and pave the way for its "just war" of "reconquering" Eastern Europe. In the West, the image of Eastern Europe was molded as either "poor backwards savages we're better off without" (for nationalists), "paranoid silly yokels crying wolf about Russia who is now playing nice" (for moderates), "ingrates not worth defending so we'll pull out" (for Trump-like US conservatives) or "backwards homophobic barbarians we don't want here because they'll ruin our utopia" (for progressivists). In Russia, they were portrayed as "lost property", accused them of being "taken over by nazis" anytime they tried to acknowledge any of the repressions suffered from USSR, and "unconscious puppets of the West" and routinely threatened with "annexation in 3 days" whenever they "misbehaved" by taking a stance against Russia's politics, whether past or current. Finally, in Eastern European countries themselves, Russia tried to ruin the image of the liberal West by portraying them as "the real fascists", "liberalism gone so far it circled back to fascism" and to prop up its own image as the "savior from debauchery upholding the good ols ways".

Also worth noting that Putin was all too eager to intervene in any country that tried to reject Russian dominance or even its own pro-Russian dictatorship. He was ready to support Belarus in 2020 and intervened in Kazakhstan in 2022 just a month before the invasion of Ukraine.

So yeah, it was quite the prep work. All to ensure that when he went on his imperialistic crusade in EE, people at home and in the West and even in Eastern Europe itself would applaud him, failing that be indifferent, failing THAT remain unheard.

* by "Putin" I don't necessarily mean just him, but the lobby behind him as well.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Olga Lautman at Unmasking Russia:

In just over two weeks, Trump has crippled U.S. national security, delivering massive wins to Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. One radical move after another, he has dismantled America’s defenses against foreign interference, corruption, and election meddling—deliberately exposing the U.S. to attack—while simultaneously waging war on our law enforcement and national security agencies. By unraveling critical national security protections, Trump has signaled to adversaries that the U.S. will no longer actively counter their influence. These moves not only endanger America’s electoral integrity but also open the door for authoritarian regimes to expand their control and further infiltrate key institutions with impunity.

Dismantling America’s Defenses: A Direct Gift to Russia

One of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s first acts was to disband the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, a unit dedicated to countering adversarial interference in U.S. politics. Created after Russia’s attack on the 2016 election, the task force investigated foreign hacking, cyberattacks, election infrastructure breaches, and influence operations—including on social media. Now? Russia, China, and Iran have free rein to attack U.S. elections with barely any FBI oversight. Bondi also gutted enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)—ensuring that foreign political operatives can work in America without disclosure or consequence. This means that lobbyists, political influencers, and even disinformation agents working on behalf of foreign governments can now operate freely within the U.S. without fear of repercussions. The removal of these enforcement mechanisms effectively greenlights covert foreign influence on U.S. lawmakers, policies, and political campaigns.

[...]

If You Think It Stops There—Nope.

Bondi also shifted enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a key tool for targeting bribery and illicit financial networks. By deprioritizing white-collar crime and corruption cases, her office has effectively signaled to foreign entities that violations will no longer be aggressively prosecuted. This move will embolden corrupt officials, business figures, and oligarchs to engage in unchecked financial manipulation, further entrenching foreign influence in critical sectors of the U.S. economy. [...]

USAID Shutdown: Our Adversarie Dream

And all of this while Trump has also shuttered USAID, one of the U.S.’s strongest tools for countering authoritarian influence abroad. USAID has been essential in stabilizing fragile states, promoting democracy, providing life-saving humanitarian aid, and blocking Russian and Chinese expansionism. By shutting it down, Trump has given autocratic regimes free rein to dominate vulnerable nations. Without USAID, U.S. allies will be defenseless against foreign influence. Russia and China will expand unchecked, filling the void with economic coercion and military partnerships. Countries in Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe will lose resources to resist foreign domination, making them easy targets for authoritarian control, corruption, and manipulation. [...]

Trump’s National Security Purge

All this is happening as Trump continues an further assault on America’s intelligence infrastructure and is pushing buyout offers to the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other national security agencies, aiming to purge career officials and replace them with loyalists. These potentially illegal forced exits will cripple intelligence operations at a time of heightened global threats.

Great column by Olga Lautman on how Donald Trump’s two-plus weeks of his 2nd term has been a gift to America’s enemies.

[mariacallous]

With Donald Trump’s election win fueling fresh speculation over the prospects for a negotiated settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again underlined his insistence on Ukrainian neutrality. “If there is no neutrality, it is difficult to imagine any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine,” he commented on November 7 in Sochi.

This is nothing new. Since the eve of the full-scale invasion, the Kremlin has been consistent in its calls for permanent Ukrainian neutrality. Neutral status was a key condition set out by the Kremlin during the abortive peace talks that took place in the first weeks of the war. It once again featured prominently when Putin laid out an updated peace proposal in June 2024.

Many in the international community regard Putin’s push for a neutral Ukraine as by far his most reasonable demand. Indeed, some have even accused NATO of provoking the current war by expanding into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence since 1991 and deepening cooperation with Ukraine. They argue that if Ukraine can be kept in geopolitical no-man’s-land, Russia will be placated.

Such thinking is likely to feature prominently as the debate continues to unfold in the coming months over the terms of a future peace deal. While Trump has yet to outline his plans for a possible settlement, unconfirmed reports suggest that a twenty-year freeze on Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations is under consideration. This would be a costly blunder. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine will not bring about a durable peace in Europe. On the contrary, it would leave Ukraine at Putin’s mercy and set the stage for a new Russian invasion.

Ukrainians have already learned the hard way that neutrality does not protect them against Russian aggression. The country officially embraced non-aligned status during the 2010-2014 presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, but this didn’t prevent Moscow from seeking to reassert full control over Ukraine. Initially, Russia’s efforts focused on orchestrating Ukraine’s economic reintegration through membership of the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union. When this sparked a popular backlash that led to the fall of the Yanukovych regime, Putin opted to use force and began the military invasion of Ukraine.

Ever since the start of Russia’s attack on Ukraine in spring 2014, Putin has sought to justify Russian aggression by pointing to the looming danger of Ukrainian NATO membership. In reality, however, Ukraine has never looked like progressing toward the distant goal of joining the alliance. For the past decade, NATO leaders have refused to provide Kyiv with an invitation and have instead limited themselves to vague talk of Ukraine’s “irreversible” path toward future membership. Putin is well aware of this, but has chosen to wildly exaggerate Ukraine’s NATO prospects in order to strengthen his own bogus justifications.

Putin’s complaints regarding NATO enlargement are equally dubious. Indeed, his own actions since early 2022 indicate that Putin himself does not actually believe that the alliance poses a genuine security threat to Russia. Instead, he merely exploits the NATO issue as a convenient smokescreen for Russia’s expansionist foreign policy.

Tellingly, when Finland and Sweden responded to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by announcing plans to abandon decades of neutrality and join NATO, Putin was quick to declare that Russia had “no problem” with the move. This evident indifference was particularly striking, given that Finnish NATO membership has more than doubled Russia’s NATO border while Sweden’s accession has transformed the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. Over the past two-and-a-half years, Putin has continued to demonstrate his almost complete lack of concern over NATO’s Nordic enlargement by withdrawing the vast majority of Russian troops from the Finnish border and leaving the area largely undefended.

Putin obviously understands perfectly well that NATO is not a threat to Russia itself, and sees no need to guard against a NATO invasion that he knows will never come. While Putin’s resentment over the expanding NATO presence on his borders is real enough, he only really objects when the alliance prevents Russia from bullying its neighbors. In other words, Putin’s opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns. Instead, it confirms that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Ukrainian statehood.

For years, Putin has made no secret of his belief that the emergence of an independent Ukraine is an historical mistake and a symbol of modern Russia’s retreat from empire. He has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is not a “real country,” and is fond of declaring that Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”). In July 2021, Putin even published an entire essay arguing against the legitimacy of an independent Ukrainian state.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, it has become increasingly apparent that Putin’s ultimate goal is not Ukraine’s neutrality but Ukraine’s destruction. The Kremlin propaganda machine has portrayed Ukraine as an intolerable “anti-Russia,” and has promoted the idea that Ukraine’s continued existence is incompatible with Russian security. Meanwhile, Putin has compared his invasion to eighteenth century Russian ruler Peter the Great’s imperial conquests, and has repeatedly claimed to be “returning” historically Russian lands.

Putin’s imperialistic outbursts must be taken seriously. Throughout occupied Ukraine, his soldiers and administrators are already imposing a reign of terror that directly echoes the criminal logic of his imperial fantasies. Millions have been displaced, with thousands more simply vanishing into a vast network of camps and prisons. Those who remain face policies of relentless Russification and the suppression of all things Ukrainian. Adults must accept Russian citizenship in order to access basic services, while children are forced to undergo indoctrination in schools teaching a new Kremlin curriculum.

The crimes currently taking place in Russian-occupied Ukraine are a clear indication of what awaits the rest of the country if Putin succeeds. Despite suffering multiple military setbacks, he remains fully committed to his maximalist goals of ending Ukrainian independence and erasing Ukrainian identity.

Furthermore, since 2022 Putin has demonstrated that he is prepared to wait as long as it takes in order to overcome Ukrainian resistance, and is ready to pay almost any price to achieve his imperial ambitions. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine in such circumstances would be akin to condemning the country to a slow but certain death.

Any peace process that fails to provide Ukraine with credible long-term security guarantees is doomed to fail. Acquiescing to Putin’s demands for a neutral Ukraine may provide some short-term relief from the menace of an expansionist Russia, but this would ultimately lead to more war and the likely collapse of the current global security order. There is simply no plausible argument for insisting on Ukrainian neutrality other than a desire to leave the country defenseless and at Russia’s mercy.

Peace will only come once Putin has finally been forced to accept Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent country and as a member of the democratic world. Naturally, this includes the right to choose security alliances. It is absurd to prioritize Russia’s insincere security concerns over Ukraine’s very real fears of national annihilation. Instead, if serious negotiations do begin in the coming months, Ukrainian security must be the number one priority. Until Ukraine is secure, Europe will remain insecure and the threat of Russian imperialism will continue to loom over the continent.

[taiwantalk]

fighting russian invasion is more than sovereignty, recovering occupied territories, good v evil, revenge, or dignity etc.

it's that russia is 1 step closer to terrorize ukraine forever. unless driven out, russia will just bomb, fire rockets, fire artilleries, shoot missiles endlessly like they did since 2014.

russians never stopped and they never want to stop war. they are the worse evil that human civilization ever known. you see, russians don't need concentration camp. russians treat the entire ukraine as one big concentration camp to murder and torture anyone they want.

ukraine truly is fighting for humanity. ukrainians know that they cannot be scared of russian nuclear weapons, not any threat of mass destruction.

editorial addition: i meant that it's more than ideologies. it's that the patterns are all there and that ukraine as well as the rest of europe are all witnessing russia to continue to terrorize all other countries by proximity. the key is proximity. now it's ukraine, next will be any other nato countries closest to russia. germany better not think it will never happen to them. putin does not care about the territories-that's the irrational thing that nobody could understand. putin just wants to be close enough to any country to be able to destroy their cities knowing nobody would dare to take the fight into a nuclear capable power like russia.

[awesome-casuallyfamouscollector]

VAD will be mandatory for male citizens of Latvia within one year of reaching the age of 18; if the person is still at school, then within one year of graduating but not later than the age of 24, meaning that higher education can be a reason for postponing service(..)

P.S. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as the apparently incompetent, careless and hypocritic behavior of the "old" Europe towards the security issues of Eastern Europe, enforces the restoration of mandatory military service in Latvia...

[apas-95]

troops from many corners of the globe have been involved in afghanistan, iraq, vietnam etc but ppl dont call these world wars which is the only reason i singled out the imperial core, western europe in this case being under threat bc realistically thats why as far as i can tell ppl from the imperial core consider wwi and wwii to be “world wars” but not other global conflicts. like u just made fun of me for assuming by world war u meant one where the imperial core is under threat and then continued to talk about it as meaning just that? or am i misunderstanding lol. anyway sorry for sending on anon im just embarasaed by my uninformed opinions >//<

Don't worry, I'm not making fun of you. I apologise if my tone led you to believe otherwise.

The fact that many imperialist nations together invaded various poor countries does not make them 'world wars', just the same as the seven-nation alliance of european empires that invaded and looted China during the century of humiliation did not constitute a 'world war' - because these nations were all united in plunder, and, really, barely carrying out 'war' as much as simple banditry.

The world wars of the previous century were notable for being conflicts between empires - including, yes, the USA. The conflict between these empires does not necessarily need to manifest as a ground invasion of their territories, especially in this, the age of nuclear deterrence - and would much more likely appear as proxy conflicts in their imperial holdings, such as already occurs between French and Russian forces in Africa.

Nobody ever attempted an invasion of the US in the previous two world wars because it was impractical, and now similarly it is impractical to attempt an invasion of any given nuclear state - but the point of the inter-imperialist conflict is the acquisition of competitor's imperial territories, not necessarily the cannibalisation of the competitor itself.

Given modern military technologies and the conception of greyzone warfare, indirect fires against the imperial core could be carried out - so, cruise missile strikes, etc - but as has been demonstrated in the Ukraine, actual red lines tend to lean more towards a 'sustainable' type of war (whose existence is entirely uncertain at this point).

To summarise: firstly, world war generally refers to conflict between imperialist states, and between imperialist spheres of influence; secondly, world war does not necessarily mean invasion of the imperial core; and thirdly, you are my friend and I love you, do not be embarrassed.

[dontforgetukraine]

The destruction at the Kakhovka HPP dam Photo credit: epravda

The damages caused to the environment by russian aggression since February 2022 are estimated at $65 billion, reports @Kabmin_UA. During this period, 1/3 of Ukrainian forests and 20% of protected areas were severely damaged by shelling. One of the most destructive acts was the explosion of the Kakhovka HPP dam, which destroyed about 10 thousand ha of wetlands. These large-scale #EnvironmentalCrimes pose a significant threat to 35% of Europe’s biodiversity located in Ukraine. —Гюндуз Мамедов/Gyunduz Mamedov