r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 7d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread September 01, 2025
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
* Post only credible information
* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
57
u/teethgrindingaches 6d ago edited 6d ago
Gazprom caught a break today with the signing of Power of Siberia 2. Took them a decade of painstaking negotiations with CNPC, but the 50 billion cubic metre pipeline is finally going forward.
Russia's energy giant Gazprom and China's state-owned CNPC signed a binding agreement on Sept. 2 to build the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline, set to deliver gas from Russia's Yamal fields to China via Mongolia for 30 years, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller announced. The deal, long delayed by Beijing's hard bargaining over prices and volumes, cements Moscow's pivot to Asia as it loses access to European energy markets. Supplies through the new route are expected to reach 50 billion cubic meters annually.
Moscow and Beijing also agreed to boost deliveries through the existing Power of Siberia line from 38 to 44 billion cubic meters per year. Miller announced the breakthrough after trilateral talks in Beijing between delegations from Russia, China, and Mongolia. "This will be the largest, most ambitious, and most capital-intensive gas project in the world," he said.
The exact price was not specified, but Bloomberg says it's lower than what Europe is paying (which shouldn't come as a surprise). CNPC has long been holding out for preferential rates; whether Gazprom caved or whether they accepted higher prices at Beijing's order is anyone's guess.
EDIT: Take this with some hefty salt, but rumour has it that CNPC was previously wary of US sanctions w.r.t. committing to such a big project. CNPC being a fuckoff huge SOE and one of the biggest oil companies in the world means that sanctions (if rigorously enforced) would have major political and economic fallout. Note that last week saw the first sanctioned Russian LNG tanker dock at a Chinese port, a tanker which set sail literally hours after Trump met Putin in Alaska the week prior. Fertile ground for all sorts of rumours, obviously. Make of that what you will.
18
u/SuperBlaar 6d ago edited 5d ago
It seems the price hasn't been decided yet and a contract is expected to be signed on the matter before the end of the year. Miller said it would be lower than what Europe is paying (explaining it by shorter logistics strain), but how much lower seems to still be in dispute between Russia and China.
(https://www.vedomosti ru/business/news/2025/09/02/1135804-tsena-postavok ; https://www.vedomosti ru/business/articles/2025/09/02/1135851-izvestno-o-sile-sibiri)
It's alleged that China was asking to pay the same price as gas on internal Russian market (120USD/1000 cubic meters +/-) while Russia wanted pricing similar to POS1 (which is already thought to be at least 25% cheaper than prices for Europe were, and twice Russia's internal price), so it's likely something will be agreed between the two.
29
u/Tricky-Astronaut 6d ago
Everyone knows that Europe paid a premium on Russian gas. Some countries didn't want nuclear or coal. Others specifically wanted to buy from Russia. Gazprom obviously charges whatever it can get away with.
For example, here's Germany's merit order of thermal power plants in 2018. Despite carbon prices, the most expensive coal plant was cheaper than the cheapest gas plant. In India and China, gas has been largely pushed out of the grid, but Germany happily paid the premium.
If we look at the current situation, Hungary has the highest wholesale prices in the EU. That's because Gazprom has a monopoly. Even Germany has lower prices. There's no replacement for Europe's willingness to pay a premium.
18
u/PaxiMonster 5d ago edited 5d ago
This is a discussion I had a long time ago, as early as 2013, I think, when I ran into my former ETS professor at a conference. The trend was already starting to look obvious back then, even though this was before the whole green deal thing sealed it.
I remarked (one of those polite things you say, I didn't really mean anything by it) that one thing that had stuck with me from his course was the counterintuitive notion that, even though we think of the merit order in terms of demand and supply, everything that happens "to the right of things you can't easily turn off" (i.e. nuclear, coal and so on) is an opportunistic monopoly because, while things to the left of it can drive down their prices, you also need to close the merit order, and the merit order closes only when the people with the gas turbines say it's closed. So while any sound development strategy needs CCGTs, gas turbines and others to cover consumption peaks, it's important for governments to keep that confined as far to the right of the chart as possible, otherwise they lose the ability to regulate markets and whoever has the gas turbines turns into a de facto price arbiter. (Edit: assuming you can afford that kind of diversity, of course, some countries can't). He really lit up and told me, yeah, you'll see that, unless something tremendous happens, fifteen years from now a lot of governments will not be able to regulate their energy markets anymore.
If you look at the 2018 merit order, the coal -> gas transition happens around 52,000 MW, at a marginal price difference of around 2 EUR, so around 5% of the baseline. In 2022, that same transition happens below the 40,000 MW line, at a marginal price difference of like 20%. In four years, Germany had conceded on the order of 20% of its energy market to production capacity that depended significantly on outside sources, to the point where a huge proportion of what powers its industrial base is entirely outside the German government's ability to develop or influence. E.g. if this dependency deepens, the German government doesn't (easily) have the option to invest in additional extraction capacity to curb supply, the best they can do is maybe open additional interconnects and hope whoever's at the other end also wants to pump more gas.
But the bigger problem is that everyone was so busy chasing emmision quotas that they hurried to displace coal because, being domestic, it was faster and easier. But it's way easier to close production capacity than to open new capacity, so more and more of the merit order fell "to the right", where suppliers can basically ask for any price they want, which accounts for the greater marginal price difference, and the increase in prices across the board.
(Edit: to clarify, what I mean here isn't that minimizing emmision figures per se was a problem, I think that was definitely the correct goal to pursue. I think what some European governments failed to do, though, was sufficiently incentivize the replacement of polluting capacities with easily regulable alternatives. Some regulatory models, like MIBEL, worked around that and it was efficient, but it relies on subsidy payments so it's not easily extendable, and worked precisely because the limited transmission capacity of the Iberian network skewed fuel price effects even further, so it would probably not be as efficient if applied EU-wide).
So the German government ceded both energy policy development and regulatory ability -- ironically enough, in the name of cheaper energy.
His opinion at the time, which I now share, was that this was criminally negligent purely from an energy and industrial development perspective, and that there is absolutely no way it could have happened without multiple, well-targeted campaigns to sway high-level officials into acting against their countries' economic interests, despite advice from their own experts. I don't mean to say they were all campagin from foreign actors, though I have no doubt some were, even if indirectly. Most were just from interested internal actors. But it took a long time to convince so many people to act so badly against their own interests, despite advice from their own experts, advice which was not formulated in technical terms, it's always been the kind of things that politicians understand (e.g. it's going to make things more expensive and make it harder to create workplaces). This whole debacle has been equal parts high-level corruption (remember Schroder?) and political myopia.
6
u/Infamous-Salad-2223 6d ago
So, I heard months ago it was kinda dead cause China wanted cheaper gas prices and Gazprom was not having it given the cost of the project, so I guess they compromised?
Is it known the estimate of what the gas sell price should be to recoup the expenses in let's say a few years?
10
u/PaxiMonster 5d ago
It's kind of hard to say, because the contract hasn't actually been signed, the price of deliveries hasn't been disclosed, and it'll actually take until the early 2030s to reach design transfer capacity, so "a few years" is way into the future (POS-1 was opened in 2019 but I don't think it reached full operational capacity until this year?)
The agreement for POS-2 is on 30 years at a projected transfer volume of 50B m3/year. That's more than the current POS-1, on a shorter route, but construction and exploitation might be more expensive, so amortization periods would be comparable. Not that it means much, since as far as I know that data isn't available for POS-1, either, but in any case, it's not construction cost and amortization that were the main blockers of POS-2 so far, it was disagreements over gas price.
9
u/checco_2020 6d ago
Are there any details on when the pipeline should Start to deliver gas?
16
u/teethgrindingaches 6d ago
2030 was proposed way back when, but that assumed construction started last year. So figure 2032 or so?
13
u/Tricky-Astronaut 6d ago
Isn't it too late to be meaningful? As the Bloomberg article notes, China's gas demand growth has been slowing. In fact, China's gas imports are down by 7% so far this year.
This could eliminate some of China's LNG imports, but it's an incredibly expensive way to do it (someone has to pay for the pipeline), especially for a stop-gap solution.
4
u/Electrical-Lab-9593 6d ago
what is to stop UAF hitting this before it is finished, also ditto for current pipelines, is it just the risk that China could start providing lethal aid to Russia ?
50
u/OmNomSandvich 6d ago
Probably not huge news to those closely following, but NYT has a fairly in-depth report on the up-arming of the cartels and other criminal organizations in Mexico
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/world/americas/mexico-cartel-weapons.html
As usual, large amounts of firearms are smuggled south from the U.S. But what is new and getting worse is the proliferation of IEDs and drones and the use of Columbian as well as Mexican army veterans to train cartel fighters. Speculation on my part, but some of the Columbians might even have fought in Ukraine and then brought their experience to Mexico.
What I think we are seeing is a decent example of Mao's (that Mao) theory of insurgency. As the cartels get more secure, they get more and more well-armed, well-trained, and hard to confront and eventually rival government security forces. Failure to drive the insurgents underground and destroy their caches and freedom of action will make things worse and worse. The article notes that Mexico lacks MRAPs when faced by IEDs. Sending MRAPs to Mexico would be a relatively easy U.S. foreign policy success.
And just as the guns flow South, there is a risk that IEDs and weaponized drones flow North.
15
u/Tucancancan 6d ago
I was curious the type of explosives they were using; the article states: "homemade gunpowder and ammonium nitrate fuel oil".
I wonder if/when they'll start making more advanced explosives? If the cartels have the skills and resources to mass produce meth and fentanyl, it wouldn't be surprising if they branches out.
13
u/OmNomSandvich 6d ago
the article also mentions use of 40mm grenades. it's probably a wash on whether it is more difficult to DIY explosive material (given their chemical manufacturing abilities) or to procure military stuff illicitly.
35
25
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sending MRAPs to Mexico would be a relatively easy U.S. foreign policy success.
This is contingent on the Mexican government being willing to fight and use them effectively, which they by and large are not. Mexico’s failures here have nothing to do with not being able to afford MRAPs, they are well within their budget. If they were unwilling to fight them when they were just armed with AR15s, they certainly won’t be when they have IEDs and drones.
3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
27
u/teethgrindingaches 7d ago
The Australian Lowy Institute published a brief rebuttal today of various claims that Indonesia's recent acquisition of Turkish ballistic missiles was targeted at China w.r.t. SCS disputes. The missiles are neither deployed nor equipped for that role; they lack the range, and even if they didn't, they lack the terminal guidance capabilities to target ships.
The location of the KHAN missile system likely signals its strategic objective. With a maximum range of 280 kilometres, its missiles cannot even reach Brunei from its present position, let alone the South China Sea. It is currently deployed in Kalimantan, Borneo, the site of Indonesia’s future capital. The defence plan for the new capital calls for a layered defence system anchored in stronger air and maritime capabilities.
With its limited range and land-attack profile, the KHAN missile system is optimised for striking fixed targets and is not suitable for engaging moving warships.
It is clear the KHAN ballistic missile system is neither aimed at China nor designed for operations in the South China Sea. Its deployment reflects Jakarta’s other strategic priorities: protecting the future capital in Borneo and reinforcing its position in overlapping maritime claims with Malaysia.
30
u/Well-Sourced 6d ago
Russia continues to strike at energy infrastructure and so does Ukraine. Ukraine has reported on their strikes over the past weeks/months and continue to hit Russian radars which they say opens up future targets. Analysts are reporting that the strikes against Shahed drones infrastructure and production facilities has had an effect on the number of drones sent into Ukraine.
Russia launched a new attack with 86 Shahed drones and various decoy UAVs, Ukraine’s Air Force said on Sept. 1. Launches were carried out from Kursk, Oryol, Bryansk, Millerovo, Primorsko-Akhtarsk in Russia and Hvardiiske in Russian-occupied Crimea. Air defense was provided by aviation, anti-aircraft missile troops, electronic warfare units and unmanned systems, as well as mobile fire groups of Ukraine’s Defense Forces.
According to preliminary data, as of 9 a.m. on Sept. 1, air defenses shot down or suppressed 76 enemy Shahed-type drones and decoy drones over northern, southern, eastern and central oblasts of the country. At the same time, 10 strikes by enemy attack drones were recorded at 6 locations.
Ukrainian power engineers come under Russian attack in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast | Ukrainian Pravda
DTEK, Ukraine's largest private energy company, has reported that one of its service vehicles was struck by a Russian drone in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast on 29 August during emergency repair works in a frontline area.
The strike on the Russian airbase in Hvardiiske was carried out by members of the elite HUR unit Prymari. The estimated value of the disabled helicopters is between $20-$30 million. In addition, HUR forces attacked the BUK-2190 tug in Sevastopol Bay.
The Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR) of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense continues to demonstrate its strength, UNIAN reports. In temporarily occupied Crimea, several key Russian targets have been destroyed, including the RT-70 radio telescope, in a latest strike. “The radio telescope is truly unique. It was built during Soviet times to monitor satellite constellations. It is genuinely one-of-a-kind,” emphasizes Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain 3rd Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk.
Pletenchuk noted that in Crimea, the enemy deployed a dense network of air defense systems to protect the Crimean Bridge and the peninsula’s military infrastructure. The layered air defense system also covers Novorossiysk, where the Black Sea Fleet’s missile carriers are based. “Clearing a path to other Russian targets begins with the air defenses,” he stresses.
Ukrainian Strikes on Russian Shahed Drone Sites Cut Attacks by a Third | Kyiv Post
Ukrainian forces have carried out a series of strikes on Russian factories and storage sites producing Shahed kamikaze drones, sharply reducing the number of drone attacks on Ukraine. According to Ukrainian media outlet Militarnyi, between July and August, Ukraine’s military and security services hit multiple Russian facilities involved in making, storing, and transporting these drones. As a result, the number of Shahed launches fell from 6,303 in July to 4,132 in August – about a one-third drop. Analysts say these numbers show that Ukraine’s strikes are working.
Experts, cited by the outlet, say Russia tends to launch drones in waves. After big attacks, they usually wait three to four days to accumulate drones before launching another round. In July, this buildup involved launching 80–200 drones over three days, followed by a record-breaking massive attack of 728 drones on July 9. In August, the accumulation strategy continued but on a smaller scale, with the size of these “pools” of drones significantly reduced.
Several strikes stand out for their impact:
Izhevsk, July 1, 2025: Ukrainian forces hit the Izhevsk Electromechanical Plant “Kupol,” a factory that makes military drones and air-defense systems like the Tor and Osa. Four workshops were destroyed, the roof of one building collapsed, and the plant had to stop all production. The strikes hit the areas where metal was processed, microchips soldered, and drones assembled.
Moscow Region, July 4, 2025: Ukrainian drones attacked a plant making warheads for Shaheds. The factory is part of Russia’s state corporation Rostec and is under international sanctions. The attack caused fire and heavy smoke.
Moscow Region, July 7, 2025: SBU drones struck the Krasnozavodsk Chemical Plant, which produces thermobaric explosives used in Shahed drones.
Astrakhan Region, Aug. 15, 2025: Ukraine hit the Olya seaport, used by Russia to receive military shipments from Iran. An Iranian ship carrying drone parts and ammunition was docked there at the time. Ukrainian forces sank the ship in the Caspian Sea, destroying its cargo and showing they can hit both Russian factories and foreign supply lines.
Tatarstan, Aug. 9–12, 2025: Ukrainian forces struck a large storage hub in Kzyl-Yul, which held finished Shahed drones and foreign components. Satellite images show at least six hits. The hub supplied parts to the Alabuga special economic zone, where drones are assembled. Analysts said the attacks destroyed large reserves of ready-to-use drones.
The strikes have forced Russia to slow down its attacks. Between June and August, Russian forces launched 11,741 Shahed drones at Ukraine, but the number dropped by a third in August alone. Analysts say hitting factories and storage sites makes it harder for Russia to stockpile drones and sustain large attacks.
Russia has tried to compensate by building two new drone launch sites – one in Navlya, Bryansk region, and another in Tsymbulovo, Oryol region. Authorities have also recruited young workers in Tatarstan to help expand drone production.
-6
u/IntroductionNeat2746 6d ago
Ukrainian forces sank the ship in the Caspian Sea, destroying its cargo and showing they can hit both Russian factories and foreign supply lines.
I'm reasonably confident that Trump could force Iran to stop selling shaheds to Russia with literally one phone call.
If he gives the Iranians and ultimatum, would they put their factories on the line for Putin, knowing full well that the US can attack those factories at will?
16
u/throwdemawaaay 6d ago
Russia has domestic Shahed production.
-6
68
u/IntroductionNeat2746 7d ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/31/middleeast/houthis-un-building-yemen-israel-intl
Houthis storm UN buildings in Yemeni capital after Israel killed PM and other ministers
Iran-backed Houthi rebels stormed the offices of two United Nations agencies in the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Sunday, a day after Israel said it killed the prime minister of the rebel-controlled government.
The offices the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations children’s agency (UNICEF) were “entered by local security forces” on Sunday morning, spokespersons for the agencies told CNN in separate statements.
A WFP staff member was detained, as were a number of UNICEF staff members, according to the statements.
Hans Grundberg, the United Nations special envoy for Yemen, later confirmed that at least 11 UN personnel were detained, adding that he “strongly” condemns the detentions, as well as the forced entry into UN premises.
Seems to me like a display of weakness by the now headless Houthis. They cannot retaliate against Israel or the US, so they're instead attacking UN staff as a way to try and show force.
41
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 6d ago
They would have been better off rounding up a dozen or so people and accusing them of being spies. UN presence in their territory is only beneficial to them, and not something they’d want to chase off. They pose little to no threat, facilitate the delivery of some aid, and in the event of another round of intensive bombing against the Houthis, will be the first going to the media demanding it be stopped.
46
u/Tricky-Astronaut 6d ago edited 6d ago
This isn't the first time UN staff is kidnapped in Yemen. On the contrary, nobody has kidnapped more UN staff than the Houthis.
Unfortunately, it won't be easy to dislodge them given the apathy of the West, the incompetence of the Saudis and the distance to Israel.
28
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 6d ago
UN presence in Houthi territory does more to benefit the Houthis than anyone else. So no one else will be that invested in stopping this.
7
u/ChornWork2 6d ago
Probably benefits starving people and children more, which is the whole mission of WFP and UNICEF to the credit of the brave people that work for organizations such as those.
Look at situation in Gaza that until Israel's blockade of aid, the UN was still managing to effectively distribute aid despite the threats from both Hamas and Israel. And now that they've been effectively shut down by israel, the overall civilian population is being starved.
26
u/Sauerkohl 6d ago
Seems to me like a display of weakness by the now headless Houthis.
Are the houthis really headless.
I was of the opinion, that the military wing of the organisation was still mostly intact.
29
u/eric2332 6d ago
I believe I read that in Israel's assessment, a large number of military leaders were also present during the bombing, however their names/fate has not been announced (perhaps the Houthis wanted to project an image of strength and/or give the impression that Israel was bad for attacking a mostly civilian target).
I don't expect the killing of military leaders to make much practical difference though, as nobody is going to invade their territory and depose them, and launching the occasional prepositioned missile at Israel or a ship does not require much organizational capacity. Maybe the prospect of personal death will lead their leaders to accept a ceasefire while not calling it that, but this too is highly questionable as historically this has not really deterred jihadist leaders.
13
u/Neronoah 6d ago
It raises the costs of shooting missiles to Israel. They are a minor threat while the Houthies would lose their leaders from time to time.
8
u/eric2332 6d ago
Yes, but those missiles have gains too. My impression is they are pretty popular with the Houthi-controlled population.
6
u/Neronoah 6d ago
But is that popularity worth being blown up? Unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, it's probably not too late to quit while they are ahead.
8
u/IntroductionNeat2746 6d ago
My impression is they are pretty popular with the Houthi-controlled population.
I genuinely have no idea what the population really thinks of the Houthis, nor do I know of any reliable way to get that info.
4
u/Time_Restaurant5480 6d ago
They are very popular with the Yemeni population. This is due to many factors including clan divides, previous civil wars, the awfulness of the previous goverment, and the Houthi ideology itself.
54
u/adfjsdfjsdklfsd 6d ago edited 6d ago
A few days after bombing the representations of the UK and the European Union in Kiev, Russia has now spoofed the GPS of the plane carrying Ursula von der Leyen on a tour visiting several "frontline states" to reaffirm Europe's commitment to defend Ukraine and itself against Russia.
While nothing happened, apart from the pilots needing to switch to manual navigation, this seems to illustrate a new Russian strategy of confronting Europe more directly.
I just wonder: for what reason? I can't help but notice the close temporal proximity to the Alaska meeting. So is this born out of boldness, seeing an opportunity to fracture European will and to dissuade Europe it from further support to Ukraine - or out of desperation, recognising that Russia's window of opportunity is rapidly closing?
37
u/shash1 6d ago
Its posturing. Great for domestic headlines. Risk free. Cost is minimal.
9
u/adfjsdfjsdklfsd 6d ago
It carries the risk that Europe will double down on it's rearmament efforts and support for Ukraine. That would be pretty costly.
18
u/FriedRiceistheBest 6d ago
It carries the risk that Europe will double down on it's rearmament efforts and support for Ukraine.
3 years in and everyone knows that Europe will not do that.
0
u/adfjsdfjsdklfsd 5d ago
Europe is doing both of those things, what are you talking about?
2
u/bearfan15 5d ago
Most nato countries have not committed to anything meaningful. Of the ones that have, im very skeptical they will meet those targets. Especially Germany.
21
u/OldBratpfanne 6d ago
Maybe in theory, but in practice this action isn’t changing anyone’s mind. No European country is going to significant adjust their defense spending or Ukraine support upwards because of an incident like this.
8
u/ChornWork2 6d ago
We know that russia won't escalate if west arms ukraine, and russia knows europe won't escalate if they do these relatively trivial events of interference.
Would be much better off had just armed ukraine to defeat russian advances years ago.
11
u/Elim_Garak_Multipass 6d ago
By now we are at the point where if they coulda, they woulda. All the proclamations about unity and strength and existential battle for the freedom of Europe and domino theories about Poland or the Baltics or whoever else being next if Ukraine falls has led us to where we are.
All that's left now are the same domestically impossible options of cutting the welfare states to massively rearm (and/or funnel some portion of that to Ukraine), committing European soldiers in large enough numbers to matter to potential war against Russia, cratering an already stagnant economy by issuing secondary sanctions against countries trading with Russia etc.
None of those are plausible, regardless of how many eurocrat planes Putin messes with. Or no matter of much of Ukraine he conquers, for that matter. You think the French citizenry is going to accept pension cuts to save Ukraine or punish Putin for anything short of nuking Paris?
16
u/Electrical-Lab-9593 6d ago
is GPS jamming targeted, I assumed is more like area denial ? and baltics/finland etc complain of jamming in the past
6
u/TryingToBeHere 6d ago
Yeah, I thought like all of the Baltics and much of the rest of Eastern Europe were subject to constant Russian GPS jamming.
23
u/RobotWantsKitty 6d ago
We are seeing media reports of GPS interference affecting the plane carrying Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Some reports claim that the aircraft was in a holding pattern for 1 hour.
This is what we can deduce from our data.
- The flight was scheduled to take 1 hour and 48 minutes. It took 1 hour and 57 minutes.
- The aircraft's transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing.
12
u/anonymfus 6d ago
The aircraft's transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing.
Which is pretty much expected if GPS spoofing was the case, because the whole concept of spoofing is based on aircraft's inability to distinguish between real and spoofed GPS signals, as opposed to GPS jamming when attacked aircraft may notice an increase in noise-to-signal ratio and eventual signal loss.
7
u/RobotWantsKitty 6d ago
The Politico article doesn't say that spoofing took place, I don't know why OP said that it did
9
u/carkidd3242 6d ago edited 6d ago
An actual airline pilot will have to comment here, but ADS-B what is self-reporting is the quality of the positioning reporting of the aircraft, which is not necessarily only provided by GPS. The Dassault Falcon 900EX she was in could have instantly failed over to a combination of INS and automatic triangulation by ground navigation signals and never have actually lost quality position reporting despite losing access to GPS.
The jet, which was chartered by the European Commission for the trip, was unable to use electronic navigational aids as a result of the interference while approaching the airport at Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second-largest city.
"Air Traffic Services immediately proposed an alternative landing approach using ground-based navigation aids (Instrument Landing System). The ground-based navigation aids used in Bulgaria are independent of GPS systems," a press release from the Bulgarian government said.
The best way to verify this story would be the ATC radio transcripts.
6
u/adfjsdfjsdklfsd 5d ago
The radio comms of the incident have been posted on X/Twitter
5
u/kevloral 5d ago
I have looked it up and the recording in that tweet can be found in the LiveATC archives: https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=lbsf2_lbpd_twr
Day: August 31
Select a time (GMT/UTC): 1430-1500Z
And then start listening at 4:25
31
u/MilesLongthe3rd 6d ago
Putin's "shadow" tanker fleet is experiencing wage arrears
The Lesotho-flagged tanker Unity, part of the Kremlin's "shadow" fleet, has been detained in the port of Murmansk. The reason for this was an appeal by the Russian Seafarers' Union, which reported complaints from the crew about wage arrears, non-functioning satellite communications, and serious violations in the ship's documentation.
The port control inspection refused to release Unity until the discrepancies were corrected and the obligations were paid. As of August 13, the total amount of debt to 20 sailors was 4.9 million rubles and 28.5 thousand dollars. The sailors reported that one part of the crew works under contracts with Argo Tanker Group LLC, which is not the shipowner, and the other part works with FMTC ShipCharter LLC. Moreover, some contracts contain references to a collective agreement with the Russian Seafarers' Union, which was not actually concluded. Until August 2025, the tanker sailed under the flag of Gambia. Due to the change of registration to Lesotho, the sailors feared that their contracts were no longer valid and they would not be able to apply to the mutual insurance club (P&I) if the shipowner was unable to pay off their wage arrears. The office of Agro Tanker Group is located in Moscow City, and it itself belongs to ATG Holding JSC and is engaged in the sale of fuel, according to SPARK data.
Since January, the company has been under US sanctions. The tanker Unity transports Russian oil at a price above the established ceiling. In 2025, the vessel fell under sanctions from the UK, the European Union, Australia, Canada and Switzerland as part of Russia's "shadow fleet". Meanwhile, the total wage arrears in Russia are growing. According to Rosstat, at the end of July this amount doubled year-on-year, increasing from 523 million rubles to 1.04 billion rubles. The Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) cited a figure of 1.7 billion rubles (+25% year-on-year). According to the organization, the number of workers at risk of dismissal also increased by 1.5 times and the number of jobs in idleness by a third. The FNPR named the high key rate of the Central Bank, which affects the ability of enterprises to take out loans for operating expenses, and the multiple reduction in the volume of orders as the main reason for the growth of wage arrears
20
u/teethgrindingaches 6d ago
Vietnam marked its 80th anniversary National Day with a military parade. You can find the original broadcast here (in Vietnamese). It's more or less what you'd expect, with the equipment on display mostly locally produced or upgraded versions of Soviet hardware plus a smattering of newbuilds in the missile and drone department. As with the Reunification Day parade in April, contingents from the Chinese, Russian, Laotian, and Cambodian militaries participated as well.
The timing is rather unfortunate from a PR perspective, through no fault of their own, seeing as China is scheduled to hold a far more grand and sophisticated parade tomorrow.
35
u/MilesLongthe3rd 6d ago
Because it is rare footage, I also post the link here.
Video of a Skynex air-defense system shooting down an Iranian/Russian "Shahed" UAV over Ukraine.
9
u/reddituserperson1122 5d ago
Does anyone still believe that Putin would go nuclear if he were facing a battlefield loss in Ukraine? Does that threat remain credible?
I don’t think it does at all. And if it’s not, it raises the question: what (domestic politics aside for the moment) is the downside to NATO/Europe entering the war and pushing Putin’s troops back to Russia? Perhaps letting him keep Crimea to save face.
The strategy wouldn’t have to be instant escalation. It could be a salami slicing carried out over a year or two or more. Introduce battlefield advisors (special forces) followed by specialized equipment and enablers followed by limited air power, etc. etc.
I find it extremely difficult to imagine any single addition of forces provoking nuclear escalation — it seems far more likely that battlefield losses, backed by the certainty of future losses to come, would just bring him to the negotiating table.
Why am I wrong?
4
u/Glideer 5d ago
He will use nuclear weapons if the benefits outweigh the downsides.
If he is choosing between a decisive defeat in Ukraine and international outcry and sanctions caused by use of nuclear weapons - well, you do the math.
The boiling the frog by slowly increasing the temperature strategy works on frogs. Less so on human beings. They see where the process is heading and tend to react violently.
7
u/reddituserperson1122 5d ago
Given that the downsides would be permanent exile from the civilized world and probably the destruction of Russia as a functional military power, it’s hard to see how a random chunk of Ukraine would be worth It.
we have repeatedly crossed Putin‘s “red lines” many times by boiling the frog and so far he hasn’t really responded at all.
5
u/Glideer 5d ago
Given that the downsides would be permanent exile from the civilized world and probably the destruction of Russia as a functional military power
Big words but, you know, permanent exiles tend not to last. How will Russia that defeated Ukraine using nukes going to be destroyed as a functional military power?
we have repeatedly crossed Putin‘s “red lines” many times by boiling the frog and so far he hasn’t really responded at all.
Ask Ukraine about Russia's red lines. Or the USA and South Korea, who now have to deal with North Korea that has access to Russian technology, including possibly ICBMs. Not to mention the massive complications stemming from the Russia-NK defence pact.
5
u/grenideer 5d ago
Russia working with other pariah states is a sign of their lowly standing, not of crossed red lines. It's not necessarily desperate, it's pragmatic, but only because they have few places to turn to.
3
u/reddituserperson1122 5d ago
“How will Russia that defeated Ukraine using nukes going to be destroyed as a functional military power?”
It’s hard to imagine that the US and Europe wouldn’t feel obligated to punish a Russia that violated the nuclear taboo. It would be basically essential to the US and NATO maintaining a credible deterrent. The most common scenario I hear is that the US/NATO would respond with overwhelming conventional air power to decimate Russian non-dual-use conventional infrastructure. The response would necessarily be devastating in order to re-inscribe the taboo, while remaining conventional and carefully structured to communicate to the Russians that we aren’t targeting their nuclear systems or attempting regime change.
There’s just no way that Europe can tolerate an actor that dangerous on their doorstep and do nothing. And they would frankly have the means to run a meaningful, successful deep strike campaign into Russia without the US, although it would have to be much more limited than a collaboration with the US would and it would pretty much empty Europe’s missile stocks. But it’s unavoidable that the Russian Air Force would be gone within a week couple of weeks, and key targets enabling Russia’s Ukraine invasion could be struck with few expected losses. Also, keep in mind that Europe collectively has scores of modern air defense systems many of which can shoot down IRBMs, which further dilutes the threat of additional Russian tactical nuclear strikes in response to a NATO air campaign.
“Ask Ukraine about Russia's red lines. Or the USA and South Korea, who now have to deal with North Korea that has access to Russian technology, including possibly ICBMs. Not to mention the massive complications stemming from the Russia-NK defence pact.” I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Sorry I must be dense. I don’t see how this is meant to be a convincing argument that Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons in response to direct European and/American intervention for Ukraine. Can you explain?
1
u/Glideer 5d ago edited 5d ago
I know that this is the most common publicly disseminated scenario but I don't know any expert that takes it seriously.
The very idea that the West that hasn't intervened in Ukraine out of fear that Russia might go nuclear will suddenly go to war with Russia that has just proven willingness to certainly go nuclear is patently ridiculous.
What carefully calibrated deep strike campaign? Russia would just say that any attack on them is an act of war (as it indeed is) and that they would use tactical nukes against any base used to launch strikes.
The threat of conventional attack on Russia is for public consumption. Nobody will risk their country being destroyed to punish Russia for using nukes.
The idea that Europe alone would attack Russia is so impossible that it's difficult to even imagine. That means going to war with Russia. Which country is going to offer their bases for this endeavour when they know that tactical nukes will be used against those bases?
No, the response would have to be diplomatic and economic. Russia is not using nukes because of the global condemnation and sanctions that would include China and India. They know that the USA and Europe attacking them is an empty threat.
3
u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago
I think the logic is the opposite. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be scary. But I think if the west didn’t respond forcefully it would basically be the end of deterrence. You’d be ratifying nuclear blackmail in the future and announcing to the world, “if you get nukes we’ll just give up.” It would certainly make a defense of Taiwan untenable. I don’t see how that situation is tolerable for Europe or the US.
2
u/Glideer 4d ago
Nuclear blackmail was the core of the MAD doctrine on which the Cold War was based - for 40 years.
We only pretend to be shocked now because it is about Russia. Those same Western experts calmly discussed possible Israeli nuclear deployment against Iranian underground facilities without ever mentioning "nuclear taboo" or plans for the USA to attack Israel if that happened.
6
u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago
Israel is not Russia and Iran doesn’t share a border with half of NATO. Nuclear blackmail during the Cold War is why we have a large standing military. It was understood that if the Soviets had been able to detonate a nuke on Germany’s border and dare the west to nuke them back, our deterrent wouldn’t be credible. Conventional force was what allowed us to plan on stopping Soviet forces in the field while retaining an escalation ladder. That remains true.
However all of this is predicated on the belief that Putin would use a nuke, and in your telling, he would pay no price for it. Again, I don’t find either of those ideas likely. You said we would impose additional sanctions on Russia. Why wouldn’t Putin just threaten to nuke Kiev if we didn’t normalize trade? No risk to him, right? He could probably break NATO by dropping a bunch of big dirty nukes right on the Ukrainian side of Poland’s border on a windy day. Poland would invoke article 5 and half of NATO would presumably be looking for any excuse to not respond while the Baltic states would be screaming bloody murder. I just don’t see how this could all be allowed to unfold.
(And that’s not even talking about what China would do once we’ve announced that if you set off a nuke we’ll stand down. Nor does it take into account domestic pressure to avenge dead NATO troops.)
0
u/Glideer 4d ago
However all of this is predicated on the belief that Putin would use a nuke, and in your telling, he would pay no price for it.
I said that?! I am consistently saying in every post that they would pay a significant price in sanctions (including by China and India), diplomatic fallout and worldwide reputational damage.
What I am saying is that the threat of the West (or Europe alone) conventionally attacking Russia in retaliation is totally non-credible.
Also, I don't think that, even if Russia used nukes, they would be dirty nukes. They would probably use nukes in air-burst mode, which leaves no significant radiation - not in Ukraine and certainly not in NATO countries.
Why don't they do that? The profit/loss calculation is currently completely against it. They are advancing, and their army keeps growing, so why risk massive sanctions and international odium?
My comment is just referring to the ridiculous notion that, in case Russia used nukes in Ukraine, the West would attack it. That's fine for public consumption but utterly lacks any logic.
→ More replies (0)6
u/jambox888 5d ago
I wonder, in the hypothetical scenario of a Russian nuclear escalation, what the target would be? Nuking a few thousand thinly-spread Ukrainian troops in the countryside won't give many benefits. Maybe Sumy, Kharkiv or Kramatorsk? Surely not Kiev but who knows.
For sure if Western militaries got involved it'd be more likely they'd hit the countries that sent them but still highly unlikely.
6
u/sunstersun 5d ago
It's mostly likely a open the genie bottle type of moment.
Really hard to predict the consequences. I fail to see a tactical strike beyond the purposes of flipping the table. Kinda like playing a losing chess board and flipping the table.
If I had to really guess, the end result would be a strike from Europe/America conventionally, and both sides just withdrawing asap.
5
u/mr_f1end 5d ago
I suppose the same targets they are bombing anyways (factories, energy infrastructure, warehouses, government institutions) plus hard to destroy targets, mainly as bridges. Possibly airfields. I agree that units are so scattered in the battlefield that there would no large tactical effect when used on the front line.
That is, if they are attacking Ukraine. If they are convinced that NATO is coming for them, they would most likely nuke military airfields in EU countries. Aircraft are relatively vulnerable and concentrated, and that is where they are relatively weakest compared to NATO.
1
u/jambox888 5d ago
I did fleetingly consider if they could use a large nuke to create a hole in the front line and attack through it, would be risky and need a huge amount of coordination though. The area would probably still be covered by artillery and air support though.
5
u/bearfan15 5d ago
Anything short of a strike that completely decapitated Ukrainian leadership is completely worthless. A strike on the battlefield or minor city wont change the front that much but it will create a million more problems including a potential war with nato.
4
u/Glideer 5d ago
I went into this at some detail here https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1mpvt1w/comment/n8ssjv6/?context=3&utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The Soviet tactics called for the use of several tactical nukes to create a breakthrough and subsequent nukes in case of counterattacks or a particularly difficult defence position.
1
2
u/reddituserperson1122 3d ago
Note that he’s no longer nuclear sabre rattling about NATO involvement on the ground.
1
u/Glideer 2d ago
Yeah, it is highly unlikely they would respond with nukes to Western troops in Ukraine. Russia would probably target them with ballistic missiles and see whether they respond. Only if things escalate from there would nukes become an option.
2
u/reddituserperson1122 2d ago
It doesn’t make any sense. Once they’ve targeted western troops a response is inevitable. There’s nothing to gain. They can’t win. Nukes will only make their defeat that much more devastating. Putin cares about regime survival more than he cares about Ukraine.
2
u/Glideer 2d ago
Well, if a response is inevitable, then further escalation from the Russian side will also be inevitable.
What they are saying is - if Western troops enter Ukraine during this war without our consent, we will fire at them. Don't forget to take that into account when you make your decision.
I would say that France and the UK care even more about Paris and London than they care about Ukraine.
1
u/reddituserperson1122 2d ago
I don’t think rational actors escalate just for the sake of escalation. They escalate towards a goal. There is nothing valuable to Putin to warrant that level of. If there were, he would have escalated a long time ago when Russia was losing badly.
And you’re missing out on the larger point which is that NATO’s viability and its own credible deterrent is premised in part on not being deterred by Russia. If Russia comes out of this conflict a winner, why would the Baltic states ever trust Article 5 again? You said it yourself — France and the UK care more about Paris and London. If NATO can be scared off by Putin sabre rattling about Ukraine, is a piece of paper someone signed in 1949 really going to make the UK risk London for a few hundred square miles of Poland?
1
u/Glideer 2d ago
NATO has spent 50 years being deterred by Russia (and deterring Russia in return). I think being deterred is nothing new to them.
If they are willing to join the war in Ukraine on one side, then by all means, it's their decision. Putin is just telling them what the consequences will be.
1
u/reddituserperson1122 2d ago
I actually don’t think NATO was ever particularly deterred by the Soviets, seeing as NATO was not expansionist. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we came and I don’t recall the US being particularly deterred.
1
u/obsessed_doomer 23h ago
Yeah what was NATO deterred from, say in the time period from 97 to 08?
Not invading St. Petersburg?
27
u/IntroductionNeat2746 6d ago
Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call
Donald Trump has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on Russian territory, even asking Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could strike Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons, according to people briefed on the discussions.
The conversation, which took place during the July 4 call between the leaders of US and Ukraine, marks a sharp departure from Trump’s previous stance on Russia’s war and his campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign conflicts.
While it remains unclear whether Washington will deliver such weapons, the discussion underscores Trump’s deepening frustration with Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s refusal to engage in ceasefire talks proposed by the US president, who once vowed to resolve the war in a day.
The conversation with Zelenskyy on July 4 was precipitated by Trump’s call with Putin a day earlier, which the US president described as “bad”.
Two people familiar with the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy said the US president had asked his Ukrainian counterpart whether he could hit military targets deep inside Russia if he provided weapons capable of doing so.
“Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked on the call, according to the people.
They said Zelenskyy replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”
Trump signalled his backing for the idea, describing the strategy as intended to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” and force the Kremlin to the negotiating table, said the two people briefed on the call
This seems to reinforce Trump's public comments about Ukraine needing to play on the offensive and bringing the war to Russia. However, since this was before the Alaska summit, who knows what's his current opinion on the matter.
67
u/ABoutDeSouffle 6d ago
That was like 6 weeks ago, I doubt it has any relevance anymore. If Trump was serious back then, he'd allow Ukraine to hit Russian soil with the weapons they got to see how they handle it. Not think about some undisclosed long-range missiles.
13
u/Awkward-Ad-5359 6d ago
Is Russia ever having problems to find more soldiers?
Russian meatwaves are relentless. If they start having problems to find soldiers it will (hopefully) give Ukrainians some time to rest by slowing down the meatwave tactic to some degree.
I'd appreciate it if you shared what you know about that.
27
u/Cassius_Corodes 6d ago
On the in Moscow's shadow podcast, Galeotti stated that due to the perception that the war would be over soon there was a surge in people signing up as people are trying to get in on bonuses and veterans benefits before it's over. That was a couple of months ago now.
34
u/SuperBlaar 6d ago edited 6d ago
Janis Kluge regularly posts about recruitment numbers insofar as they can be inferred from budget figures.
IIRC, last year's Q3 saw a notable drop in recruitment in spite of big raises in bonuses, which gave hope to some (including myself), but then an unprecedented surge happened in Nov/December (Trump victory effect?).
Overall it seems like recruitment figures can be maintained at the moment. The news shows a "positive" dynamic (Russia is advancing on the map, US is ambivalent on Ukraine, ..) and there's still some hope on a soon-to-be negotiated end to the war. I fear that if there are real economic problems and they impact the job market it will further fuel military recruitment (the strong job market led to rising wages and boosted confidence; lots of people took out loans (to buy houses, cars, etc) at high interest rates in 2023-2024, and now there's a lot of people with overdue debt).
9
u/mr_f1end 5d ago
I fear that if there are real economic problems and they impact the job market it will further fuel military recruitment (the strong job market led to rising wages and boosted confidence; lots of people took out loans (to buy houses, cars, etc) at high interest rates in 2023-2024, and now there's a lot of people with overdue debt).
I just want to endorse this. I think a lot of people do not realize that as Russian economy gets worse, people would have even more reason to join the military. Volunteering comes with debt forgiveness. I think a lot of men would rather go to the front than have their family on the street.
14
u/IntroductionNeat2746 6d ago
On that topic, I've been wondering for a while now about Russian sign in bonus. Earlier this year there was a big focus on that and the bonus kept going up, but I haven't heard anything in months.
20
u/Corbakobasket 6d ago
It's stagnating, and in some regions it even decreased.
It appears that, partly to the broader effort to make the war cheaper, enlistment bonus have been revised down. Also most of Russias regions were sourcing money from their own funds and eventually ran out.
That being said I don't know if it discouraged people from enlisting.
14
u/IntroductionNeat2746 6d ago
That being said I don't know if it discouraged people from enlisting.
That's the million ruble question. In theory, it's definitely should, but with a worsening economy, people might be willing to volunteer for less money.
22
u/mirko_pazi_metak 6d ago
It's currently a life-changing sum - one could say once-in-a-lifetime opportunity - for the contractnik and their family. In many cases it's more money than they would bring back to their family over a whole lifetime of paychecks minus the booze.
This is why Russians aren't complaining about the war dead - these are all people who made this deal willingly and so did their families, now living on their death-in-service payouts and without their drunkard deadbeat husband/father/son.
Once this balance changes and it's no longer buying them a flat and a (Chinese) car, fewer and fewer will join up and instead opt to smuggle petrol or similar as the the worsening economy under government restrictions is always followed by gray economy & black markets.
I'm sure Putin is well aware of the danger and will try to balance things out - and he seemed well capable in doing so, so far. My hope is that as Russia gets stretched thin everywhere then something unexpected happens and shakes thibgs apart. Doesn't have to be another Prigozhin-like mutiny - just a sudden oil price drop which Saudis alone can orchestrate, or similar. We'll see!
19
u/Tricky-Astronaut 6d ago
Here's a thread about Russian recruiting:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1954802202112819577.html
3/ In the past, Russia resorted to recruiting prisoners to get more people. That approach has shifted. Now, individuals arrested on suspicion of various crimes are offered the chance to sign a contract with the MoD on the spot - often as a way to avoid criminal investigation.
...
8/ The catch: these recruits are officially “volunteers,” not mobilized. But the pressure to enlist is often physical - beatings, hazing by other soldiers, and threats of reassignment to dangerous combat zones like Kursk oblast without the benefits granted to contract soldiers.
...
10/ A man caught with a small joint in Russia who then faces police threats of having larger quantities of drugs planted on him to send him to jail can hardly be called a conscious volunteer. This manipulation disguises coercion and is a good example of hidden mobilization
Russia has a larger population and can be more selective, but coercion is becoming more widespread. There are some similarities with the mobilization in Ukraine.
14
u/Duncan-M 5d ago
Russia doesnt use Meatwave tacrics, so that's probably something you would want to address before coming to terms with this question. If you define the problem using propaganda, the only acceptable reply will then need to be propaganda.
0
u/Lejeune_Dirichelet 5d ago
The terms "meatwave" or "meat assault" are also used by the Russian side.
10
u/Duncan-M 5d ago
Show me when "meatwave" was used by the Russians. Meat Waves are synonymous with human wave attacks. Pretty hard to do that with squads and fireteams attacking here and there, which is how the Russians have done those attacks for years.
No doubt "Meat Assault" is a term used, as the Russians are definitely using Meat, I've said so myself. But to qualify all Russian infantry attacks as meat is just false. In fact, and per numerous Pro_UA sources too, a large number of RU advances aren't even attacks anymore, as they can easily infiltrate right through the Ukrainian lines, bereft due to their manpower crisis and orders to not engage the Russians unless being assaulted.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
If this comment has been deleted, it is likely due to Reddit blacklisting the .RU domain. Post as text or find another source in an entirely new comment. This is a site wide issue, and not a choice of this CredibleDefense moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-5
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
43
6d ago edited 6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-17
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
17
15
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
48
11
1
0
6d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 6d ago
Exact figures on the radar cross section of the F-35, or any other stealth plane, are not publicly known. Any answer here would be highly speculative. We do not have the data to speak in anything more than rough generalizations about how the F-35 might compare to other fighters, none the less granular enough knowledge to discuss one F-35 variant compared to another.
One of the only datapoints we have access to is the reception of these fighters on the export market. But that is muddied by politics and a lack of direct competitors to the F-35B. But, its relative success could be read as an indication that if it is compromised, it’s not major enough to deter adoption.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and Unverifiable/Speculatory Indo-Pakistan conflict belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.