Russian special military operation in Ukraine #57

Backman wrote:Nato is doing strategic attacks on Russia under the guise of Ukraine defending itself

What's wrong with that? NATO is just using its once in a lifetime opportunity to destroy Russia, once and for all.

nomadski wrote:
Heard analysts mention two things : ( 1 ) Russia will probably not retaliate against NATO , even if longer range weapons requiring direct NATO involvement , are used against Russia deep inside Russian soil , as long as these attacks are not significant . ( 2 ) Russia will probably retaliate , if longer range weapons are used that require direct NATO involvement .  I think that if Russia is making advances along the entire frontlines and is predicted to liberate even more territory , and if attacks are not significant , irrespective of range and type and who is actually firing or directing them , then it makes sense not to retaliate against NATO in a major way , but to keep it mostly symbolic . Then a precisely defined break even point must be established , to cross over from symbolic to essential action within these smaller European nations . It is getting confusing and busy in my mind , the News and propaganda getting mixed up . If nothing changes , then Russia has no choice but to fight on , the end result of the point where the fighting stops , depending on what gives or breaks first !

What are the actual risks of Russia retaliating? What can Russia win for not retaliating and lose for retaliating?

sepheronx wrote:Eventually Russia will have to push forward in order to prevent their mainland from being hit.

There is another way for Russia to prevent its mainland from being hit. Hit back and cause serious damage to the ones that hit Russia. In their own territory and in strategic targets. They will back off. After all they have more to lose than Russia as they have bigger populations and are richer than Russia.

ucmvulcan wrote:So Joe the Bidet, he's a crime boss and that's the most appropriate mob name i could think of, has authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to Attack inside Russia.  Is this the red line?

Lavrov gave a "strong warning" to outsiders not to intervene when Russia started the smo. Lavrov's strong warning has meant absolutely nothing up to this point.

Words and red lines mean nothing if they are not enforced.

flamming_python wrote:

ucmvulcan wrote:So Joe the Bidet, he's a crime boss and that's the most appropriate mob name i could think of, has authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to Attack inside Russia.  Is this the red line?

Very simply Russia needs to retaliate against NATO targets on NATO territory in such an eventuality.

The instinct may be to avoid that but this situation can't be considered in isolation. It won't stop here. The US will raise the stakes further and Russia will be left facing the same decision again. And then what?
To avoid becoming a punching bag like Iran, Russia has to match every move or give an asymmetric response of equal gall.

Good post. I have been saying this for the last 10 years, ever since Putin made the grave mistake of signing the Minsk agreements.

The West keeps escalating until Russia either

- hits back
- or is destroyed.

It is up to Russia to decide whether it wants to die or fight back. Russia might end up dead in both cases, but at least Russia will die fighting and will bring lots of western countries down with it.

The best outcome for the world would be if the sane minds in the West will stop the escalationary process after Russia's retaliation.

The problem with Russia's non-retaliation policy is that it gives more power to war-hawks in the West. They can say: "Look, we can do anything to Russia and they will do nothing to us. Why not hurt Russia even more when they are weak and down?".

But if Russia hits back they have to think about the safety and future of their own country and their own children.

Karl Haushofer wrote:...

Whoever's paying you to do 'Concern Trolling' here should get a refund.

flamming_python wrote:

ucmvulcan wrote:So Joe the Bidet, he's a crime boss and that's the most appropriate mob name i could think of, has authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to Attack inside Russia.  Is this the red line?

Very simply Russia needs to retaliate against NATO targets on NATO territory in such an eventuality.

Putin's already said what Russia's next move is if NATO gives the greenlight to attacks on Russian territory. Since ATACMS has a 300km range, how much of the Ukraine would be needed for a buffer zone? Oh, that's right...

Broski wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:...

Whoever's paying you to do 'Concern Trolling' here should get a refund.

flamming_python wrote:

ucmvulcan wrote:So Joe the Bidet, he's a crime boss and that's the most appropriate mob name i could think of, has authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to Attack inside Russia.  Is this the red line?

Very simply Russia needs to retaliate against NATO targets on NATO territory in such an eventuality.

Putin's already said what Russia's next move is if NATO gives the greenlight to attacks on Russian territory. Since ATACMS has a 300km range, how much of the Ukraine would be needed for a buffer zone? Oh, that's right...

What will that solve? And that's pretty much the plan at this point even without the latest escalation, besides. Simply by virtue of the fact that the hostile Ukrainian state has to be neutralized in capability and there is nobody to negotiate with over there.

But as to NATO, they'll next be sending Tomahawks with 3000km range to the Ukraine, and claiming that the Ukrainians are the ones launching them. And these Tomahawks will not impact some Russian units engaged in the fighting but Russian airbases, radars and arms manufacturing plants as that is what will be justified as necessary to 'help the Ukraine win'
With these 'strikes against Russian units on the border with Kharkov' they're dipping their toe in the water. But answer this, what happens next after you dip your toe in the water and it turns out warm?

I have to agree with Karl Haushofer here the only way to stop this cycle of escalation is to hit back and hard. It can put the escalation into overdrive, but even if it does, sane minds will win out after some raging.

Best option is to strike at the assets NATO uses, or at least jam them, around Russia that assists Ukraine.

Destroying Drones is the ideal move too.

Next is to more or less strike at anything that reaches the boarder of Ukraine.

I dont agree with Russia just striking NATO targets directly in their respective country.  Instead, the best retaliation next is to arm Yemeni forces and Syrian forces to strike at the US and NATO assets in around them.

It becomes a "two can play at this game" sort of thing.

sepheronx wrote:Best option is to strike at the assets NATO uses, or at least jam them, around Russia that assists Ukraine.

Destroying Drones is the ideal move too.

Next is to more or less strike at anything that reaches the boarder of Ukraine.

You'll be destroying drones, and arms supplies which cross into the Ukraine (which Russia is already doing to the best of its capability), while they will be targeting whatever they want in Russia from Ukrainian territory by asking you to pretend with them that it's in fact the Ukrainians that are doing that.

I dont agree with Russia just striking NATO targets directly in their respective country.  Instead, the best retaliation next is to arm Yemeni forces and Syrian forces to strike at the US and NATO assets in around them.

Russia should already be arming the Yemeni and Syrian forces to strike at every US and NATO asset in their vicinity. You know, just like how the US and NATO are supplying Ukrainian forces with everything they have to strike Russian forces.
Or more exactly, Russia should be supplying just the Yemenis, as the Syrians likely want to stay out of a full-scale shooting war with the US themselves.

It becomes a "two can play at this game" sort of thing.

But it's not, it will just be one player playing the game, the other one has chickened out and his limits will be known.

And then Putin's helicopter will crash enroute somewhere and what will you do then?

flamming_python wrote:

ucmvulcan wrote:So Joe the Bidet, he's a crime boss and that's the most appropriate mob name i could think of, has authorized Ukraine to use US weapons to Attack inside Russia.  Is this the red line?

Very simply Russia needs to retaliate against NATO targets on NATO territory in such an eventuality.

The instinct may be to avoid that but this situation can't be considered in isolation. It won't stop here. The US will raise the stakes further and Russia will be left facing the same decision again. And then what?
To avoid becoming a punching bag like Iran, Russia has to match every move or give an asymmetric response of equal gall.

But some will argue that Nato wants Russia to attack it and that's the point. 

And this is just another Putin red line.

There has to be grey areas where Russia can attack Nato. Like sinking supply ships that are bringing stuff to Ukraine. What else can Russia do

Backman wrote:But some will argue that Nato wants Russia to attack it and that's the point. 

And this is just another Putin red line.

There has to be grey areas where Russia can attack Nato. Like sinking supply ships that are bringing stuff to Ukraine.

And they also wanted Russia to attack the Ukraine as they meant to crash its economy and dismember it, that was the plan.
And indeed they put Russia into such a position where it had to launch the operation, the war will have happened anyway just not on Russia's terms.
There was nothing to be done.

Your opponent wants to kill you and will do everything to provoke you into a serious response so that he can shout to his friends looking on that 'he dunnit!'. Which they will agree with him on regardless.
But if you do nothing and don't rise to the occasion eventually he will simply deal a killing blow to you outright after testing your reactions a little more, and you would have been robbed of any ability to either de-escalate the situation by baring your teeth, or whooping him.

What else can Russia do

A parity response. Strike NATO territory with Russian military units from Ukrainian territory and claim that it was the Donbass rebels being overenthusiastic, or disaffected Ukrainian soldiers, or whatever. Doesn't have to be particularly believable.

flamming_python wrote:What will that solve?

Quite a lot, actually. Liberating Odessa and Nikolaev means no more attacks on Crimea from the Sea. Moving the front lines back 300km on all sides means that most of the weapons the Nazis currently use against Russia won't reach Russian territory anymore.

And that's pretty much the plan at this point even without the latest escalation, besides. Simply by virtue of the fact that the hostile Ukrainian state has to be neutralized in capability and there is nobody to negotiate with over there.

There'll be plenty of 'normal' Ukrainians to negotiate with once the Nazi regime is liquidated and many of them will seek revenge against the people that kidnapped their loved ones off the street to die in a muddy pasture somewhere in the Donbass. It's a self correcting issue.

But as to NATO, they'll next be sending Tomahawks with 3000km range to the Ukraine, and claiming that the Ukrainians are the ones launching them.

Are they going to give the Ukraine B-52's to launch them with as well?

And these Tomahawks will not impact some Russian units engaged in the fighting but Russian airbases, radars and arms manufacturing plants as that is what will be justified as necessary to 'help the Ukraine win' With these 'strikes against Russian units on the border with Kharkov' they're dipping their toe in the water.

Russia will have no problems shooting down subsonic cruise missiles launched from 1000's of miles away, the problem for NATO is which enemies of theirs will receive 3000km range cruise missiles from Russia or the technology to build them in response to their stupidity?

But answer this, what happens next after you dip your toe in the water and it turns out warm?

What if they dip their toe in the water and lose their whole foot?

I have to agree with Karl Haushofer

And yet you don't see the problem here?

the only way to stop this cycle of escalation is to hit back and hard

So your problem is that Russia isn't retaliating on your schedule?

It can put the escalation into overdrive, but even if it does, sane minds will win out after some raging.

Which sane minds? The ones playing nuclear chicken with Russia to begin with? Or are you talking about your own raging? Not trying to be funny but I remember how you were behaving on here when the conflict broke out in 2022, it's sad to see you slipping back to your old patterns again.

OK Flaming, lets assume you are right and that US is just attacking Russia claiming its Ukraine.

Let us also say that Russia retaliates and hits directly at NATO assets in NATO Countries as a form of retaliation.

That will prompt war.  Now my question to you is, are you willing to risk it.  Means a lot more of your people will die, especially ones getting hit by big bombs and NATO has no problem hitting civilians.

And if Putin gets killed? Oh well.  Maybe someone else will do a better job of handling it and do a full on war like you want.

Once again, best option is to hit US and EU assets in Ukraine, **** with their systems all around Ukraine, and arm others to destroy EU and US assets elsewhere.

Otherwise, you are gonna go from bad to worst and Nuclear weapons is a possibility.

And what killing blow do you speak of Flaming? So far, there has been no killing blows or anything close to it. There has been occasional attacks on various sites and killing of civilians in Belgorod.

Broski wrote:Quite a lot, actually. Liberating Odessa and Nikolaev means no more attacks on Crimea from the Sea. Moving the front lines back 300km on all sides means that most of the weapons the Nazis currently use against Russia won't reach Russian territory anymore.

Russia will lose a lot of men by trying to rush things. While I would agree in the case of Odessa and the Black Sea Fleet specifically, but if they can find a way to manage the threat to the fleet then that would be preferable. Then demilitarization and denazification can progress according to the conditions most favorable to Russia.

However none of this pertains to the NATO missile threat against Russia, sans the Crimea and Donbass which have always been theatres of this war, are heavily defended and can be managed.
The NATO missile threat against Russia will only grow in time and missiles with greater ranges will be supplied once Russia fails to give an adequate response to their use. The ATACMS is only the beginning.

There'll be plenty of 'normal' Ukrainians to negotiate with once the Nazi regime is liquidated and many of them will seek revenge against the people that kidnapped their loved ones off the street to die in a muddy pasture somewhere in the Donbass. It's a self correcting issue.

And I hope you're right but this is again irrelevant to the immediate matter at hand.

Are they going to give the Ukraine B-52's to launch them with as well?

They'll give them whatever is necessary to launch them, or analogous missiles, if neccessary modifying them to be launched from a less expensive asset, or they will attempt to extend the range of other missiles such as the same ATACMS.
Israel has a bunch of short range ballistic missile systems, so does South Korea, and those can be given to the Ukraine too and targeted, launched with the help of NATO personnel and NATO intelligence.

But more dangerous are cruise missiles assuming the launch platforms are provided. F-16s might be able to launch some of them.

Russia will have no problems shooting down subsonic cruise missiles launched from 1000's of miles away, the problem for NATO is which enemies of theirs will receive 3000km range cruise missiles from Russia or the technology to build them in response to their stupidity?

Some of these missiles are quite sophisticated and especially cruise missiles with long ranges can be programmed to follow paths and at low altitudes that avoid the main zones of air defense and the highest priority targets, and attempt to hit instead at less valuable but more vulnerable targets.
If you allow them to keep launching them at will, they will eventually find weak spots.

What if they dip their toe in the water and lose their whole foot?

By allowing them to strike Russian territory with no direct repurcusions?

And yet you don't see the problem here?

I believe you don't. Hence why you're bringing up what Ukrainians there will be to negotiate with, or how to defend the Crimea. That's not relevant at the moment, if you don't see that then you haven't grasped the significance of the crisis that's developing.

So your problem is that Russia isn't retaliating on your schedule?

There is as yet nothing to retaliate against, I am opining as to Russia's options for when these attacks come as it appears now that they will and soon.

Which sane minds? The ones playing nuclear chicken with Russia to begin with?

The ones playing chicken have the initiative only because of Russia's passivity that they have been able to portray so far to their opponents as Russia's weakness and them following a winning strategy, the same one they implemented on Iran. Probe Russia for a lack of resolve and when you find that Russia is ready to back down, then steadily twist their arms into that.

Or are you talking about your own raging? Not trying to be funny but I remember how you were behaving on here when the conflict broke out in 2022, it's sad to see you slipping back to your old patterns again.

You don't live in Russia and are not subject to military mobilization, it's not your place to say what my reaction should or shouldn't be.
I'm acting rationally and I've explained my rationale over the last several posts already.

Above all I want the situation to de-escalate and for the war to be contained but to do that at this stage you have to show your strength to the bully. Now is not the time for retaliation according to your own timetable or some asymmetric whatever. That will all be interpreted by the enemy as a sign of supreme weakness.

And if it proves instead that war is inevitable, then the war was always going to be inevitable, delaying it would only have afforded the enemy some free hits before having to come to the same decision to retaliate anyway.

Biden said it was OK, but state department quickly, soon after, said it isn't OK to use the weapons on Russia directly.

Essentially, the only option Russia has is to arm US and EU's opponents and say its OK to use them on the US directly (and officially say it) and to defeat Ukraine entirely.

Because India and others will say "Oh, but you are at war with Ukraine so Ukraine can strike Russia directly". I know the mindset of people around outside of Russia.

Anyway, I don't think Russia will sit idle regarding this. I can understand your anger and frustration.

sepheronx wrote:OK Flaming, lets assume you are right and that US is just attacking Russia claiming its Ukraine.

Let us also say that Russia retaliates and hits directly at NATO assets in NATO Countries as a form of retaliation.

That will prompt war.  Now my question to you is, are you willing to risk it.  Means a lot more of your people will die, especially ones getting hit by big bombs and NATO has no problem hitting civilians.

Again, let's say you do nothing. Then Putin dies in a helicopter crash some months later.

What will your options be then? Assassinate the US president? And how much likelier will that be to herald full-scale war as opposed to a symmetric response in the current situation?

Or will you be on here again, saying that alas Putin is already dead, what does it matter, if you retaliate then you'll just risk war?
At what point is it worth retaliating, sepheronx?

But moreover you don't get it. This is the chance now to avoid any such scenario like that. The only chance in fact, if I've read the US political and military elite correctly and I believe I have.

And if Putin gets killed? Oh well.  Maybe someone else will do a better job of handling it and do a full on war like you want.

Haha, I wrote the above before I even saw this line you wrote in response.
I rest my case.

I can't believe I'm saying this but Sieg has a point.

The issue is, Russia is at war with Ukraine
US can justify it internationally that Ukraine can strike whomever they like in Russia, the nation they are at war with. Russia cannot strike at NATO because it isn't at war with them, yet.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:state department has said the ukies are free to attack military targets in russia.

Youve got to be next level stupid to think the ukies have no right to bomb their enemies military infrastructure, fuel supplies etc during a war.

If Russia cannot have their stuff bombed then they should not be bombing Ukraine's.

this entire notion that Ukraine has no right to attack the russians inside russia military wise during a dam war is perhaps single handed the biggest braindead thing  have seen on this forum in sometime

It has got nothing to do with the Ukrainians having the right or not, this is a false narrative. Since the very start of the war the Ukrainians were targeting airbases in the Rostov-on-Don and Belgorod regions with Tochka ballistic missiles (a few times successfully). They were conducting helicopter raids in the Belgorod region, and made an attempt to invade it a couple of times. The Ukrainians attacked Moscow, they attacked even a Russian strategic bomber base. With their own weapons. None of this provoked WW3.

The question is not about the right but about the means. The Ukrainians have no means to attack Russian territory anymore. So they ask NATO forces to do that instead for them. And it becomes a question as to whether Russia allows NATO to attack it or whether it retaliates to that.

Again I reiterate these are NATO crews, manning NATO equipment, getting targeting data from NATO recon and intel means, and attacking targets within Russia. And they get their orders from NATO too. The only relation they have to the Ukraine is that they're operating from its territory.

Perhaps Russia's invitation of Yanukovich to Minsk for tea with Putin and Lukashenko is a hint at a Russian response. Namely the setting up of a fake Ukrainian state and fake Ukrainian army that can then hit NATO territory with about the same 'convincing' level of plausible deniability

flamming_python wrote:

Backman wrote:But some will argue that Nato wants Russia to attack it and that's the point. 

And this is just another Putin red line.

There has to be grey areas where Russia can attack Nato. Like sinking supply ships that are bringing stuff to Ukraine.

What else can Russia do

A parity response. Strike NATO territory with Russian military units from Ukrainian territory and claim that it was the Donbass rebels being overenthusiastic, or disaffected Ukrainian soldiers, or whatever. Doesn't have to be particularly believable.

I agree. But Putin is a lawyer and he mostly cares about keeping it legal. That is why there is no car bombs in Kiev. A completely defanged FSB. No real Russian proxy armies or terror groups anywhere. Russia could arm and fund groups of misfits that could attack US assets anywhere.

The only thing that would actually cause the west to pause is if a successor was named. And that successor started doing things differently.

If Nato was attacked the same way Iran or Russia is, it would discover quickly that there isn't much they could do either. What if Russia sinks the next British ship that comes along Crimean waters just to provoke things ? We are overdue for one of those. What would the US or UK really do ?

Backman wrote:I agree. But Putin is a lawyer and he mostly cares about keeping it legal. That is why there is no car bombs in Kiev. A completely defanged FSB. No real Russian proxy armies or terror groups anywhere. Russia could arm and fund groups of misfits that could attack US assets anywhere.

The only thing that would actually cause the west to pause is if a successor was named. And that successor started doing things differently.

If Nato was attacked the same way Iran or Russia is, it would discover quickly that there isn't much they could do either. What if Russia sinks the next British ship that comes along Crimean waters just to provoke things ? We are overdue for one of those.  What would the US or UK really do ?

And what Putin will find that he will eventually face in response are not only attempts on his own life, but more terror attacks on Russian cities from the same "not-NATO totally Ukrainian" missile systems designed to break the Russian population's faith in their own leadership and their own armed forces. Don't believe me? Look at Donetsk and Lugansk.
And a bunch of other things too.

And I agree that Putin's instinct will be to avoid any sort of parity response. But his military and political advisers will convince him of the necessity by laying out the same scenario I have done. It's obvious. What the US's calculations are, and what their tactics will be.

So nip in the bud, you don't have a choice.
There is no need for terror groups or car bombs or whatever. Just firm and prompt action.

flamming_python wrote:

Backman wrote:I agree. But Putin is a lawyer and he mostly cares about keeping it legal. That is why there is no car bombs in Kiev. A completely defanged FSB. No real Russian proxy armies or terror groups anywhere. Russia could arm and fund groups of misfits that could attack US assets anywhere.

The only thing that would actually cause the west to pause is if a successor was named. And that successor started doing things differently.

If Nato was attacked the same way Iran or Russia is, it would discover quickly that there isn't much they could do either. What if Russia sinks the next British ship that comes along Crimean waters just to provoke things ? We are overdue for one of those.  What would the US or UK really do ?

And what Putin will find that he will eventually face in response are not only attempts on his own life, but more terror attacks on Russian cities from the same "not-NATO totally Ukrainian" missile systems designed to break the Russian population's faith in their own leadership and their own armed forces. And a bunch of other things too.

And I agree that Putin's instinct will be to avoid any sort of parity response. But his military and political advisers will convince him of the necessity by laying out the same scenario I have done. It's obvious. What the US's calculations are, and what their tactics will be.

So nip in the bud, you don't have a choice.
There is no need for terror groups or car bombs or whatever. Just firm and prompt action.

OK, so you are in charge.

Who would you strike first. What would be your response exactly?

Karl Haushofer wrote:

nomadski wrote:
Heard analysts mention two things : ( 1 ) Russia will probably not retaliate against NATO , even if longer range weapons requiring direct NATO involvement , are used against Russia deep inside Russian soil , as long as these attacks are not significant . ( 2 ) Russia will probably retaliate , if longer range weapons are used that require direct NATO involvement .  I think that if Russia is making advances along the entire frontlines and is predicted to liberate even more territory , and if attacks are not significant , irrespective of range and type and who is actually firing or directing them , then it makes sense not to retaliate against NATO in a major way , but to keep it mostly symbolic . Then a precisely defined break even point must be established , to cross over from symbolic to essential action within these smaller European nations . It is getting confusing and busy in my mind , the News and propaganda getting mixed up . If nothing changes , then Russia has no choice but to fight on , the end result of the point where the fighting stops , depending on what gives or breaks first !

What are the actual risks of Russia retaliating? What can Russia win for not retaliating and lose for retaliating?

Depends on what you mean by retaliating.  I would say for example, providing the Houthis with sat intel to sink a US carrier with Iranian missiles would be a good one. They just received missiles with 1600 km range. Now if 5 of those plunge into a US carrier with Iranian technicians in Yemen receiving live Russian satellite intel with Russian technicians in Yemen.. then that would be a great retaliation. Closing Syrian air space with ever more powerful missiles would also be a good one.

sepheronx wrote:OK, so you are in charge.

Who would you strike first.  What would be your response exactly?

With the first attacks have the Russian government go radio silent. Meanwhile have all the news channels and talk shows cover the NATO strikes. And build up the tension for a few days to convey to Washington that shit is going to go down. Make a speech to your population about war being upon us, escalation of NATO attacks against Russian territory and the imminent arrival of NATO forces to the Ukraine. Something like FDR's "this day will live in infamy" after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour.

Then announce another round of partial mobilization. Proclaim the establishment of the fake Ukrainian state and fake Ukrainian army with Yanukovich as its commander in chief. Again, the enemy is not making much of an effort to be convincing, so no reason why you should be either. And then have the 'Ukrainian' army carry out some demonstrative strikes on NATO supply bases on Polish or Romanian territory adjacent to that of the Ukraine. Depending on the extent of casulties the NATO attacks on Russian soil incurred, you can choose to inform NATO of the strikes half an hour in advance - or not.
Or as an alternative, to avoid striking Polish/Romanian forces, that may harden public opinion in these countries - launch these attacks on a US base in these countries instead, or against French or British forces if it was their missiles that were used.

And then allow NATO time to decide whether they want to proceed with this whole escapade.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:state department has said the ukies are free to attack military targets in russia.

Youve got to be next level stupid to think the ukies have no right to bomb their enemies military infrastructure, fuel supplies etc during a war.

If Russia cannot have their stuff bombed then they should not be bombing Ukraine's.

this entire notion that Ukraine has no right to attack the russians inside russia military wise during a dam war is perhaps single handed the biggest braindead thing  have seen on this forum in sometime

Whoosh. You don't seem to know what the developing crisis even is.

Nato is using Ukraine to strike Russia's strategic weapons and defenses. Military infrastructure that has nothing to do with the Ukraine war.

This would be like a civil war breaking out in Cuba with Russia supporting the communists, and then Russia shooting at natl missile defense and radar sites in Florida.