What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Eastern Europe News

Wrong, not developing now - deploying.
And noone cares much because BMD doesn't change the end result, AKA 'Everyone's dead.'.
It is not - Ukraine is a place for a buffer state between zones of influence. And by ideologization of Western policymaking, the EU was drawn by it's own rhetoric and US's into the sanction quagmire from which it has problems withdrawing now - prisoner of their own rhetoric.
rofl, we're not investing jack shit in Ukraine in the end. It's a trophy in a competition Russia fights alone.
 
The Russian investment in Donbass is minimal.
Now, remember me again who is paying the bills of the Ukrainian gov/nation?
 
And noone cares much because BMD doesn't change the end result, AKA 'Everyone's dead.'.

rofl, we're not investing jack shit in Ukraine in the end.

No one cares about BMD, which is shown that every major power and even smaller states are investing into the missile and now even ASAT capabilities, with major players creating unified aerospace defense on international level.

And true Doctor Discord, we are not investing in Ukraine. We have already done that.
 
No one cares about BMD, which is shown that every major power and even smaller states are investing into the missile and now even ASAT capabilities, with major players creating unified aerospace defense on international level.
Doesn't change jack shit and you know it. When there are hundreds of nukes in the air with decoys and stealth warheads, you don't win, noone does. And even if someone somehow made a perfect shield straight out of Reagan's fantasies, then deterrence takes another form, Status-6 torpedoes, Strangelove devices, etc. You don't get to survive MAD.

BMD isn't there to protect oneself against large powers but against small actors who are increasingly getting access to SRBM or MRBM, because that´s the only thing it can protect against IRL. It simply increases the entry fee for MAD to keep it at UNSC level.
And true Doctor Discord, we are not investing in Ukraine. We have already done that.
Yes, we've put pocket money in it. But then, we have quite the wealth.
 
Wrong, not developing now - deploying.
You're right.

And noone cares much because BMD doesn't change the end result, AKA 'Everyone's dead.'.
That is not true. The goal is not for anybody to die, it's for one side to be able to force the other side to surrender to a threat of nuclear attack that could not be reciprocated.

we're not investing jack shit in Ukraine in the end.
Oh, we have invested a lot. The recent EU complaint in WTO against Russian counter-sanctions and import substitution shows how much we've invested into Ukraine. Because of the 2014 stupidity, we've created a hostile situation with our major energy provider and market for our goods, a military power which we could not hope to repel without outside help. We've created a situation which allows 3rd parties, the US, UK and Turkey, to significantly influence our own security situation by influencing Ukrainian politics, which they do all the time. We're basically powerless to influence the situation in any meaningful way, as the 7 years of inaction regarding Minsk 2 shows, and right now our leaders are uselessly complaining that the US and Russia are about to discuss the new security system in Europe without the European Union. So, yeah, we're invested in Ukraine, and don't know how to get out, and we're incurring significant losses all the time. Even the current energy crisis in the EU could have been probably averted or at least minimized if we had better relations with Russia. NS-2 would be operating for 2 years now, the Ukrainian 2019 contract wouldn't be so ridiculously expensive, very likely Russia would be willing to sell directly on the spot market because it would have much cheaper transport options.
 
Doesn't change jack shit and you know it. When there are hundreds of nukes in the air with decoys and stealth warheads, you don't win, noone does. And even if someone somehow made a perfect shield straight out of Reagan's fantasies, then deterrence takes another form, Status-6 torpedoes, Strangelove devices, etc. You don't get to survive MAD.

BMD isn't there to protect oneself against large powers but against small actors who are increasingly getting access to SRBM or MRBM, because that´s the only thing it can protect against IRL. It simply increases the entry fee for MAD to keep it at UNSC level.

Yes, we've put pocket money in it. But then, we have quite the wealth.

Thank you, Doctor Obvious, for explaining something first grade school pupils can count and showing us use of proper nomenclature.
Also you should get down from the tree of brinksmanship and MAD, becouse that is not how competition between global powers and power blocks do work out.

And your money statement, well, who can forbid wealthy to spend money? Just you should look who benefits from your spending, so then you would not be running around like Americans cursing the heavens for not being fair.
 
That is not true. The goal is not for anybody to die, it's for one side to be able to force the other side to surrender to a threat of nuclear attack that could not be reciprocated.
Except no BMD can prevent a counter-value strike and you know it.
Oh, we have invested a lot. The recent EU complaint in WTO against Russian counter-sanctions and import substitution shows how much we've invested into Ukraine. Because of the 2014 stupidity, we've created a hostile situation with our major energy provider and market for our goods, a military power which we could not hope to repel without outside help. We've created a situation which allows 3rd parties, the US, UK and Turkey, to significantly influence our own security situation by influencing Ukrainian politics, which they do all the time. We're basically powerless to influence the situation in any meaningful way, as the 7 years of inaction regarding Minsk 2 shows, and right now our leaders are uselessly complaining that the US and Russia are about to discuss the new security system in Europe without the European Union. So, yeah, we're invested in Ukraine, and don't know how to get out, and we're incurring significant losses all the time. Even the current energy crisis in the EU could have been probably averted or at least minimized if we had better relations with Russia. NS-2 would be operating for 2 years now, the Ukrainian 2019 contract wouldn't be so ridiculously expensive, very likely Russia would be willing to sell directly on the spot market because it would have much cheaper transport options.
Meh, for this, I simply blame the idiots who don't wanna be nuclear chads like us, but it's funny to see the very myopic interpretation of events in this thread according to which Russia isn't to blame for anything and everything it does, including shooting down airliners, backing those who hijacks these, invading and annexing neighbours, doing assassinations openly in Europe, etc. Heh, Russia isn't to blame either for the rise of tensions, it must be the EU and the CIA all along, who are simultaneously super competent enough to organize the color revolution but too stupid to find their ass without a map.
Thank you, Doctor Obvious, for explaining something first grade school pupils can count and showing us use of proper nomenclature.
Also you should get down from the tree of brinksmanship and MAD, becouse that is not how competition between global powers and power blocks do work out.
Nah, that's what our nuclear policy has been for decades. No counter-force, just one warning followed by genocide strikes that ensure global escalation and everybody dying. Properly and logically sociopathic to keep the peace. One prestrategic strike, then if there's no backing down, we murder tens of millions and go to hell en masse since after that, the Russkies will fire at everyone to not have anyone else live and win.

The notion of anyone winning when nukes are involved is something we spend billions every year to make impossible.
 
Last edited:
Hey Rufus, you just described the US.
Just change the annexing with regime change and is a perfect description of our 'friends' from the other side of the Atlantic.
 
Hey Rufus, you just described the US.
Just change the annexing with regime change and is a perfect description of our 'friends' from the other side of the Atlantic.
Why, yes. Though at least, the countries in the European sphere of influence of the US don't mass shoot their protesters, and they also have proper access to the Covid vaccines, unlike Russia. So, if we gotta have one asshole, I prefer to be in NATO than in the WP for sure.
 
Russia has access to vaccines. The problem is that the population doesn't trust the gov, and doesn't take them. Like 30%+ of the US armed forces. I wonder why...
 
Except no BMD can prevent a counter-value strike and you know it.
No current BMD can.

Heh, Russia isn't to blame either for the rise of tensions, it must be the EU and the CIA all along
It all started when we've decided to help coup Ukraine, piss on all Russian attempts to come to some compromise, and supported the most russophobic, West-Ukrainian part of the Ukrainian political spectrum. Then, when the Russians tried to protect their own from neo-nazis (something that is not optional for them), we've continued with sanctions, and forced the Ukrainian government to sit down and negotiate only when there was a threat of military defeat. Russia clearly took it as a declaration of war, and is working on winning it, that should be pretty obvious by now. We've had a chance to end it for a long time, btw France has also voted for the Minsk 2 agreement in the UNSC (resolution no 2202), but then did jack shit to force the Ukrainians to actually implement it, instead blaming Russia. How is Russia supposed to enact Ukrainian laws that are prescribed in Minsk 2 eludes me to this day... It was a serious miscalculation, our elites evidently thought that we will be able to economically force Russia to surrender. It's clear now that this failed, and we're now staring at a possible escalation of the conflict into a domain where we're most likely going to lose. That is why suddenly we're open to negotiations about Russian security demands, even though they've been making them since 2007.
 
Russia has access to vaccines. The problem is that the population doesn't trust the gov, and doesn't take them. Like 30%+ of the US armed forces. I wonder why...
Yes, they have access to 'vaccines' with discutable effectiveness. And what's your source for the 30 % of US armed forces? From what I read, their troops followed the order and got the jab wih few exceptions getting the boot. Though the level of confidence of the Russian population in its government, or, for the matter, of the former WP countries' population... is pretty telling on the living conditions. I sure prefer to be in NATO than to be a Russian satellite: better conditions overall, especially if not in the US proper. But, heh, if some have nostalgia for the good old time of the WP, be my guest.
No current BMD can.
And no future one in a reasonable timeframe. Plus, as I said, even if some magical one came to be, build a Strangelove device and that's it. It´s not a technological issue, it never was since the moment mutual destruction was accepted.
 
And no future one in a reasonable timeframe. Plus, as I said, even if some magical one came to be, build a Strangelove device and that's it. It´s not a technological issue, it never was since the moment mutual destruction was accepted.
I think you have outdated information. I thought the same that you write even about a year ago. Then I started to get interested in what all these HGVs and hypersonic cruise missiles and THAAD/S-500/whatever are about, and came to the conclusion that classical ICBMs with classical warheads have about 5-10 more years of relevance.
 
I think you have outdated information. I thought the same that you write even about a year ago. Then I started to get interested in what all these HGVs and hypersonic cruise missiles and THAAD/S-500/whatever are about, and came to the conclusion that classical ICBMs with classical warheads have about 5-10 more years of relevance.
That's a nice hypothesis, but then I take the industry's claims on future performance of their stuff with a healthy eyebrow because I've got to see enough such claims in my life facing reality in a harsh and often humiliating manner (ah, the good old claims of absolute performance of WVR missiles leading to an AIM-9X being shot in perfect conditions above Syria against an unmaneuvering CAS plane and missing hard). And, once again, since you seem to ignore the point: even if ICBM become outdated, it doesn't change MAD, since MAD is a philosophy rather than a tech. Build a Strangelove device or FOBS, or designer bioweapons, etc.
 
No current BMD can.

It all started when we've decided to help coup Ukraine, piss on all Russian attempts to come to some compromise, and supported the most russophobic, West-Ukrainian part of the Ukrainian political spectrum. Then, when the Russians tried to protect their own from neo-nazis (something that is not optional for them), we've continued with sanctions, and forced the Ukrainian government to sit down and negotiate only when there was a threat of military defeat. Russia clearly took it as a declaration of war, and is working on winning it, that should be pretty obvious by now. We've had a chance to end it for a long time, btw France has also voted for the Minsk 2 agreement in the UNSC (resolution no 2202), but then did jack shit to force the Ukrainians to actually implement it, instead blaming Russia. How is Russia supposed to enact Ukrainian laws that are prescribed in Minsk 2 eludes me to this day... It was a serious miscalculation, our elites evidently thought that we will be able to economically force Russia to surrender. It's clear now that this failed, and we're now staring at a possible escalation of the conflict into a domain where we're most likely going to lose. That is why suddenly we're open to negotiations about Russian security demands, even though they've been making them since 2007.

Hey, but "We" cannot make miscalculations, right?
Also, just like Rufus is showing, "we" do not need to contend with what "others" think about what we are doing or to think about possible repercussion of what we say, do or imply.

Except no BMD can prevent a counter-value strike and you know it.
[...]
Nah, that's what our nuclear policy has been for decades. No counter-force, just one warning followed by genocide strikes that ensure global escalation and everybody dying. Properly and logically sociopathic to keep the peace. One prestrategic strike, then if there's no backing down, we murder tens of millions and go to hell en masse since after that, the Russkies will fire at everyone to not have anyone else live and win.

The notion of anyone winning when nukes are involved is something we spend billions every year to make impossible.

Funny is to read someone who have no particular idea about potential threats to the Russian Federation nor knowing how it subjectively perceives them.
Russian BMD effort is a part of a broader multilayered international aerospace defense system which have a gial of deterring and thinning out potential attack thus enabling a counterstrike. Most of the Russian worries are not about bllistic missiles per se but about low observeable stand off weapons and delivery platforms carrying precision guided munitions that can be launched from the regional bases of their potential enemies, which more or less, grant capability for disarming strike before relevant amount of the arsenal can be launched. That was in the early 2000s and 90s and was observed in the 70-80s. That is why Russia prioritised aerospace defense assets and battle managing systems together with communication together with own long reach precision strike conventional but also nuclear capable weapon systems. That is also a reason for hypersonic weapons programs of major powers. Use of extensive missile defense is similar for projected use of Soviet era orbital combat constellations - escort and breaking through BMD space assets for the follow on missile strike. Here BMD lowers the amount of targets you can simultanously engage plus allows for survival of larger portion of strike assets for retaliation.
With your rants about uselessness of BMD, mass retaliation and emphasis of French nuclear doctrine you clearly show lack of comprehension or appreciacion of radically diffrent security enviroment the Russian Federation is in nor particular collection of threats it faces, negating also past three decades of armed forces and evolution of warfare (mainly proliferation of long reach precision strike).

[...]Build a Strangelove device or FOBS, or designer bioweapons, etc.

Seriosuly, you should stop using political satires as some kind of compass about deterrence.
 
Last edited:
Funny is to read someone who have no particular idea about potential threats to the Russian Federation nor knowing how it subjectively perceives them.
Russian BMD effort is a part of a broader multilayered international aerospace defense system which have a gial of deterring and thinning out potential attack thus enabling a counterstrike. Most of the Russian worries are not about bllistic missiles per se but about low observeable stand off weapons and delivery platforms carrying precision guided munitions that can be launched from the regional bases of their potential enemies, which more or less, grant capability for disarming strike before relevant amount of the arsenal can be launched. That was in the early 2000s and 90s and was observed in the 70-80s. That is why Russia prioritised aerospace defense assets and battle managing systems together with communication together with own long reach precision strike conventional but also nuclear capable weapon systems. That is also a reason for hypersonic weapons programs of major powers. Use of extensive missile defense is similar for projected use of Soviet era orbital combat constellations - escort and breaking through BMD space assets for the follow on missile strike. Here BMD lowers the amount of targets you can simultanously engage plus allows for survival of larger portion of strike assets for retaliation.
With your rants about uselessness of BMD, mass retaliation and emphasis of French nuclear doctrine you clearly show lack of comprehension or appreciacion of radically diffrent security enviroment the Russian Federation is in nor particular collection of threats it faces, negating also past three decades of armed forces and evolution of warfare (mainly proliferation of long reach precision strike).
Too bad that this doesn't change jack shit to the final result, which is "Everyone is dead after we nuked the cities and they fired back". That's the thing with the subtelties of openings, gambits and cunning strategies when the other player brings an explosive suicide belt to the chess championship. The submarines are at sea, undetectable, and they murder enough people that all further planning becomes irrelevant. We don't care about destroying the enemy arsenal or forces, we never had anything close to sufficient to do it seriously, so Russia can protect its armoured divisions, airbases and ports as much as it wants, they're just going to invade a parking lot based on orders from another parking lot.
 
Yes, they have access to 'vaccines' with discutable effectiveness.
Sputnik-V is just fine, if you want to dispute it then you can publish your own Lancet article disproving the one about Sputnik-V.

Though the level of confidence of the Russian population in its government, or, for the matter, of the former WP countries' population... is pretty telling on the living conditions.
That has nothing to do with living conditions, it's a cultural thing. We think differently about our rulers, it goes double for Eastern Slavs' culture. Trying to govern over Russians is like herding cats, and they're a nation of natural anti--vaxers precisely because of that. As soon as their government proposes something, they start to look for the catch, no matter the government. Their approach to COVID is very interesting, it's like the people and the government have an unspoken agreement - the government doesn't force people to vaccinate and doesn't take it too far with the QR codes and lockdowns, and the people don't criticize it for the excess deaths that could be prevented. But it has nothing to do with the vaccine - whoever wants it, can get it, it's free, and it's just as effective as any other good vaccine. And the economy works just fine, better than ours, so basically the government's job's been done.

That's a nice hypothesis, but then I take the industry's claims on future performance of their stuff with a healthy eyebrow because I've got to see enough such claims in my life facing reality in a harsh and often humiliating manner. And, once again, since you seem to ignore the point: even if ICBM become outdated, it doesn't change MAD, since MAD is a philosophy rather than a tech. Build a Strangelove device or FOBS, or designer bioweapons, etc.
You're still not getting what I'm saying. The situation isn't black or white, have full sovereignty or be radioactive dust. A massive cobalt-salted device able to depopulate the whole Earth could be theoretically built, but would it be used if faced with the choice of either suffering a surgical nuclear attack that would disarm you, or surrendering sovereignty over one's natural resources and political choices? It would take a madman to do so, it's just not a practical threat that anybody would believe, and even if somebody attempted it, they would very likely be stopped by their own people. That is why you need to be able to deliver a measured response, and that is where BMD comes in - it will take that ability from you, unless you are able to overcome it.
Dr Strangelove was a fantastic movie, and it helped explain MAD very well, but its idea has been make unworkable by technological development. When your opponent can use nukes to render you defenseless without actually killing you, threatening to commit suicide just to harm him is not a serious threat. Btw that is why the Russians consider also mass strikes by non-nuclear cruise missiles a strategic threat, as they could potentially achieve a similar result - you are defenseless and the enemy can rule over you without killing you.
 
Sputnik-V is just fine, if you want to dispute it then you can publish your own Lancet article disproving the one about Sputnik-V.
You mean the articles that were criticized deeply because of the lack of independent evaluation and the absence of publication of the primary data?
You're still not getting what I'm saying. The situation isn't black or white, have full sovereignty or be radioactive dust. A massive cobalt-salted device able to depopulate the whole Earth could be theoretically built, but would it be used if faced with the choice of either suffering a surgical nuclear attack that would disarm you, or surrendering sovereignty over one's natural resources and political choices? It would take a madman to do so, it's just not a practical threat that anybody would believe, and even if somebody attempted it, they would very likely be stopped by their own people. That is why you need to be able to deliver a measured response, and that is where BMD comes in - it will take that ability from you, unless you are able to overcome it.
That never was our doctrine. We've been very clear from Day One that the doctrine is counter-value and it never raised any eyebrow here: the targets were population centers from the instant the bombers were operational. At some time, there was even an accidental launch order sent to the bomber base and the system worked nicely, the pilot taking off and refusing orders to come back until he went Bingo Fuel since the plane needed refueling before going on its run to Moscow. This is the thing some people have a hard time understanding. The explicit goal of the nuclear force was to, and I quote verbatim, "kill eighty million Russians even if Russia could kill eight hundred million French, that is, if there were eight hundred million French to begin with".

Good luck doing a BMD against that, we just need a couple warheads to go through to make the other side lose.
Dr Strangelove was a fantastic movie, and it helped explain MAD very well, but its idea has been make unworkable by technological development. When your opponent can use nukes to render you defenseless without actually killing you, threatening to commit suicide just to harm him is not a serious threat.
Of course it is. MAD always was about dying together, not winning.
That has nothing to do with living conditions, it's a cultural thing. We think differently about our rulers, it goes double for Eastern Slavs' culture. Trying to govern over Russians is like herding cats, and they're a nation of natural anti--vaxers precisely because of that. As soon as their government proposes something, they start to look for the catch, no matter the government. Their approach to COVID is very interesting, it's like the people and the government have an unspoken agreement - the government doesn't force people to vaccinate and doesn't take it too far with the QR codes and lockdowns, and the people don't criticize it for the excess deaths that could be prevented. But it has nothing to do with the vaccine - whoever wants it, can get it, it's free, and it's just as effective as any other good vaccine. And the economy works just fine, better than ours, so basically the government's job's been done.
Oh, yes, and France is well-known for being easy to govern and not protesting anything either, I suppose.
 
You mean the articles that were criticized deeply because of the lack of independent evaluation and the absence of publication of the primary data?
Oh come on, you claim to have a PhD so you have to know how it goes. You can criticize a peer-reviewed article in popular press as much as you want, but that means jack shit from the POV of the relevant scientific community. You want to attack it? Write your own peer-reviewed article in the same journal. Everything else is just empty talk, including your attacks here ;)

That never was our doctrine. We've been very clear from Day One that the doctrine is counter-value and it never raised any eyebrow here: the targets were population centers from the instant the bombers were operational. At some time, there was even an accidental launch order sent to the bomber base and the system worked nicely, the pilot taking off and refusing orders to come back until he went Bingo Fuel since the plane needed refueling before going on its run to Moscow. This is the thing some people have a hard time understanding.
I'm not talking about French nuclear forces. Excuse my bluntness, but they're about to become completely irrelevant - just as the UK ones - in maybe 10 years, unless you begin to invest in BMD and hypersonic weapons. I'm talking here about the big boys - US, Russia, China.

Oh, yes, and France is well-known for being easy to govern and not protesting anything either, I suppose.
I won't pretend that I know something about French culture and the specifics of the government-governed relationship. I can only tell you what I know about our culture and the Russian culture, which is similar to our and which I spent a lot of time studying the last 5 years. But I'd be happy to hear your explanation about why the French, who obviously like to protest anything, have such a high vaccination rate (congrats btw). Maybe then I would know what's the cultural difference, which could be extrapolated to other areas.
 
Oh come on, you claim to have a PhD so you have to know how it goes. You can criticize a peer-reviewed article in popular press as much as you want, but that means jack shit from the POV of the relevant scientific community. You want to attack it? Write your own peer-reviewed article in the same journal. Everything else is just empty talk, including your attacks here ;)
No, I mean, it was criticized by the relevant scientific community. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext# https://osdm.org/english/2021/02/06...sults-of-the-sputnik-v-vaccine-phase-3-trial/ https://cattiviscienziati.com/2020/09/07/note-of-concern/

I got sources, even if I'm not trying to drown simplistic thoughts in artificially complicated vocabulary to look smart like someone else (not you) on this thread.
I'm not talking about French nuclear forces. Excuse my bluntness, but they're about to become completely irrelevant - just as the UK ones - in maybe 10 years, unless you begin to invest in BMD and hypersonic weapons. I'm talking here about the big boys - US, Russia, China.
That's one hypothesis. Just, I guess, as guns became completely irrelevant on planes after the Sparrow missile was invented. And I'm sure that stealth planes are absolutely invulnerable and make the entire concept of air defence or non-stealth planes utterly irrelevant too (Russia is a big joke with its S-400 and S-500, they haven't understood that F-35 makes these missiles a waste of money).

Clearly. I mean, the Powerpoint says so, and so do the simulations.
I won't pretend that I know something about French culture and the specifics of the government-governed relationship. I can only tell you what I know about our culture and the Russian culture, which is similar to our and which I spent a lot of time studying the last 5 years. But I'd be happy to hear your explanation about why the French, who obviously like to protest anything, have such a high vaccination rate (congrats btw). Maybe then I would know what's the cultural difference, which could be extrapolated to other areas.
Most likely because protesting and grumbling doesn't mean removing critical thought and some respect for science in general. Also, make things clearly accessible, don't look like you're always hiding stuff, keep corruption at a reduced level (we have some, but not nearly to the level of Russian oligarchs or the friends of the president-for-life) and have a functional political class, AKA an opposition which isn't de facto controlled by the leading party nor foreign powers and that has the interest of the country in mind. Cue even the far-right parties mostly encouraging vaccination. Whereas in Russia or in former WP countries, err, well... Let's just say that the legacy of Soviet/affiliated governance isn't exactly healthy.
 
Last edited:
[...]Let's just say that the legacy of Soviet/affiliated governance isn't exactly healthy.

It is not connected with Soviet or Peoples governments per se but more or less manifestation of Plato's cave, future shock and influence of popular authorities, ie. non vaccinating part is basically that part of the society that is intellectually incapable or have problems with living in 21st century. Given the civilisational jump that has taken place in the Eastern Europe during last century, it is hardly to not notice.
Plus, of course, anti governmental movements and rhetoric from the times of the Cold War and popular belief into that everything that is Western (or in most cases American, which is used as a synonym) is gold and true.
 
It is not connected with Soviet or Peoples governments per se but more or less manifestation of Plato's cave, future shock and influence of popular authority, ie. non vaccinating part is basically that part of the society that is intellectually incapable or have problems with living in 21st century. Given the civilisational jump that has taken place in the Eastern Europe during last century, it is hardly to not notice.
Plus, of course, anti governmental movements and rhetoric from the times of the Cold War and popular belief into that everything that is Western (or in most cases American, which is used as a synonym) is gold and true.
Yes, it must be this, clearly some sort of pseudo-philosophical rationalization rather than very down to Earth issues of corruption, overdose of propaganda, educational issues and the legacy of the Soviet-style governance, which also explains so well why the Eastern European population doesn't get the Western vaccines either. Oh, wait. Oops.
 
Yes, it must be this, clearly some sort of pseudo-philosophical rationalization rather than very down to Earth issues of corruption, overdose of propaganda, educational issues and the legacy of the Soviet-style governance, which also explains so well why the Eastern European population doesn't get the Western vaccines either. Oh, wait. Oops.

Says someone who have monopoly on sources of scientific understanding.
Come down from time to time on the first line and see personally how things work here.
Travels educate.
 
Says someone who have monopoly on sources of scientific understanding.
Sorry to be the one posting sources about, for example, the critics held against Sputnik. But I'd rather not obfuscate my discourse with undergrad philosophy vocabulary. ^_^;
Come down from time to time on the first line and see personally how things work here.
Actually worked in Ukraine for a bit (before the war, that is) - enjoyed the low prices and decent food (in Lviv, that is, the stuff in Bukovel was really shitty, no offence to the locals, way too much grease and pepper), and we had a number of Ukrainian colleagues in the lab. The girls were pretty cool and competent. The one guy... well, I've never seen before or after someone who would literally lick nanoparticles in toluene. Or would smell that bad in a work environment.
 
Sorry to be the one posting sources about, for example, the critics held against Sputnik. But I'd rather not obfuscate my discourse with undergrad philosophy vocabulary. ^_^;

Actually worked in Ukraine for a bit (before the war, that is) - enjoyed the low prices and decent food (in Lviv, that is, the stuff in Bukovel was really shitty, no offence to the locals, way too much grease and pepper), and we had a number of Ukrainian colleagues in the lab. The girls were pretty cool and competent. The one guy... well, I've never seen before or after someone who would literally lick nanoparticles in toluene. Or would smell that bad in a work environment.

без горілки не зрозумієш
;)
 
Back
Top Bottom