LosLobo

Whoever dreamed up this "drone-strike-threatens-MAD" narrative skipped Nuclear Strategy 101. Claiming a drone strike on parked aircraft breaks MAD is pure fearmongering and reveals a misunderstanding of strategic stability. The real deterrent—submarines and road-mobile missiles—remains untouched. Your claim relies on textbook logical fallacies: Slippery slope: "A minor drone strike means the whole triad collapses." Straw man: Misrepresenting a tactical raid as a NATO nuclear threat. Appeal to fear: Raising the specter of nuclear war to stifle criticism. Next time, fewer movies, fewer fallacies, more research.

OMG, to counter the criminal sex offender's lying rhetoric, Elon Musk is posting facts on his X media. He’s sharing how the BBB will bankrupt the U.S. and how "solar power is so obviously the future for anyone who can do elementary math." https://x.com/elonmusk

LosLobo TM

Thanks, Frank! A classic mixed salad of non sequitur, false cause, and appeal to wealth. Seems like logic— or spelling, aren’t exactly your forte today.

Thanks! As Republican strategist and former RNC Chairman, Rick Wilson, said in his book Everything Trump Touches Dies, and no doubt that will eventually include the US

Trump vs. Musk: 8 Ways Their Feud Could Unfold The growing feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk could have significant political and economic consequences. Here are eight ways their conflict could escalate: What Musk Could Do: Fund Opposition Campaigns: Musk could use his billions to fund campaigns against Trump and Republicans, even withholding the final $100 million of his pledge to support Trump. Social Media as a Weapon: He could leverage X (formerly Twitter) to stir controversy, like proposing a new political party and supporting Trump’s impeachment. Expose Trump: Musk might drag Trump into controversy by alleging that Trump’s administration delayed the release of Epstein-related files due to his involvement. Disrupt Government Operations: Musk could threaten to decommission SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft, halting critical NASA operations. What Trump Could Do: Cut Contracts: Trump could end government contracts with Musk’s companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, potentially costing Musk billions. Investigate Musk: Trump could push for investigations into Musk’s naturalized citizenship and past drug use. Revoke Security Clearance: Trump could revoke Musk’s top-secret clearance, making it difficult for Musk to continue his work with NASA. Use Presidential Powers: Trump could use executive orders or direct investigations to target Musk’s projects or personal interests. This high-stakes feud could reshape the political and economic landscape in unpredictable ways. Credit: The New York Times, Kellen Browning, June 5, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/05/us/trump-elon-musk#musk-trump-attacks-feud

To get a good pizza crust I used to use one of these with my small fan forced oven sub 250 centigrade. New upgraded 12-inch hole pizza baking pan with wings for holding 2 sides cooked all over fast with lift non-stick serving tray | Lazada.co.th

Russia started the war with just 6 to 9 A-50 AEW&C aircraft — vital for coordinating missile strikes, bomber missions, and air defense. These aircraft are rare, slow to replace, and crew training takes years. As of June 2025, up to five A-50s are believed lost or disabled, with varying levels of confirmation: Feb 2023 – A-50U damaged/destroyed at Machulishchy airbase, Belarus (visual satellite evidence, no Kremlin admission) Early 2023 – A-50U reportedly lost (widely cited in independent sources, unconfirmed officially) Jan 2025 – A-50U shot down over Sea of Azov (confirmation made public in June 2025 via pilot’s wife ; crew presumed dead) June 2025 – A-50U hit in Ukrainian drone strike on Russian bomber base (credible reports) June 2025 – Second A-50U reportedly hit in same drone strike (claimed by Ukrainian sources) If all remaining aircraft are intact, Russia may still have 1–4 operational A-50s. Even in the best case, this is a major blow to Russia’s airborne command capability.

Frank, you watched the blast 20 metres down in near-zero visibility, then X-rayed all 110 of the 70-metre footing piles for integrity — while reduced to fish food. Yet somehow, you're still posting. Incredible.

'Ukraine has damaged at least two of Russia’s rare A-50 AEW&C aircraft in its audacious drone attack on Vladimir Putin’s strategic bomber fleet'. Two More A-50s Down? That’s a Strategic Gut Punch. If reports are accurate and Ukraine took out two A-50 aircraft in this attack, that brings potential losses to four — nearly half of Russia’s pre-war fleet, and I doubt if all of these are still operational. These aren’t just fancy flying radars. They’re the eyes and ears of Russia’s long-range bomber strikes. They: Guide cruise missiles Detect incoming threats Coordinate air defense Without them? Bombers like the Tu-95s and Tu-160s are flying blind and open to attack Cruise missiles lose precision Russian airspace gets a whole lot dumber Degraded Russia’s ability to coordinate large-scale nuclear or conventional air strikes — and weakened its early warning capability Each A-50 takes years to build and to train crews for. Russia only had about 6–9 at the start of the war. No spares. No quick replacements. This isn’t just a tactical win — it’s a strategic degradation of Russia’s ability to conduct coordinated aerial warfare in Ukraine and beyond. Ukraine just took out their command tower — and Russia is scrambling in the fog. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/06/03/ukraine-strikes-putin-prized-spy-plane/

Updated AI assessment based on above plan. Kerch Bridge – Likely Damage Assessment Now looking at the image — the red box highlights foundation piles under the main arch. These 110 steel tubes (⌀1420 mm) are driven 64–72 m deep to support the span. The area also lies within a marked seismic boundary zone. They're the load-bearing spine of the entire structure. Undermine them — literally — and you don’t need to blow up the roadbed. The bridge will sink itself. These piles are hidden beneath water and sediment — not visible to satellites or quick inspections. That’s why this is a slow-burn sabotage — designed for delayed failure, not flashy fireworks. Signs to watch: Repair activity beneath the bridge pointing to likely underwater or foundation damage Slight sag or misalignment in the arch Sudden load restrictions or closed lanes And the beauty —you can't fix what you can't see.

Frank, tell your FSB handler the Cyrillic-to-English translator needs a reboot.

AI assessment based on available information...... Kerch Bridge – Likely Damage Assessment The explosion hit a support pillar with 1,100 kg of TNT underwater. That much force likely cracked or damaged the base. Even if the pillar didn’t collapse, it may now be unstable or slightly out of alignment. The blast could have damaged the road or rail deck above — cracks, shifts, or structural stress. The bridge will likely be closed for safety checks and repairs. If the pillar is badly damaged, repairs could take weeks or even months. Even without a collapse, the strike disrupted a key Russian supply route.

Putin is going to be very p*ssed off. The Kerch Bridge was his pet project and this is the second time it's been attacked.

Whatever, Frank.

That’s just flat-out wrong. FPV stands for First Person View — not “fiber optic.” It refers to drones piloted in real time using a video feed, typically over radio frequencies. No one’s flying drones thousands of kilometers with a cable dragging behind. And no, FPV drones aren’t immune to electronic countermeasures. Quite the opposite — they’re especially vulnerable to jamming because they rely on radio signals for both control and video. You’d expect someone with a degree in science to know the basics before lecturing others.

You come across as someone who thinks tossing around buzzwords substitutes for substance — but your post shows you don’t grasp diplomacy, enforceability, or even the basics of critical reasoning. You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but Hitchens’s Razor applies: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And you’ve provided none. Your argument leans heavily on a salad of logical fallacies: – Begging the Question – Assuming the offer was legitimate, then using that assumption as proof of its legitimacy. – Straw Man – Recasting my argument as a complaint about all guarantees, instead of what it was: a critique of trusting a regime actively violating prior agreements. – False Equivalence – Comparing the challenges of enforcing normal treaties to accepting an ultimatum from an invader is bad logic — and worse diplomacy. – Appeal to Futility – Dismissing enforceability concerns by claiming no guarantee is enforceable — after suggesting the UN Security Council, where Russia has veto power, as your solution. – Tu Quoque – Suggesting Ukraine’s flaws justify Russia’s actions doesn’t defend your argument — it dodges it. – Assertion-as-Evidence – Stating something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. It just makes it louder. Frankly, your post feels disingenuous: all assertion, no proof, and riddled with logical fallacies. Try again — this time with evidence, not rhetoric.

No.

You keep calling it a “genuine offer,” but facts require evidence — and you’ve provided none. What exactly made it genuine? That Ukraine had to surrender territory? Trust the same regime that had just invaded, annexed land, violated the Budapest Memorandum and Minsk accords — and sent in unmarked Russian soldiers, the so-called “little green men,” to seize Crimea, with covert operatives to destabilize Donbas? A peace offer that demands one side give up its sovereignty isn’t an offer — it’s an ultimatum. You can dress it up however you like, but without enforceability, reciprocity, or basic trust, it’s not diplomacy. It’s coercion with a press release. And invoking the UN Security Council as your enforcement mechanism — when Russia holds veto power — doesn’t back up your case. It guts it. A genuine offer doesn’t come with a loaded gun on the table.

Brandolini says it takes ten times more effort to refute BS than to produce it. You’re clearly working overtime generating it — and I’m done wasting my time cleaning it up. Have a good evening.

Seems you’ve served up a word salad of logical errors: post hoc, circular reasoning, cherry-picking, suppressed evidence, ad hominem, motive fallacy, false dilemma, appeal to certainty, and contextomy — all tossed together and served like it makes a coherent case. Assertions aren’t arguments. Repeating “very obviously” doesn’t make something true. That’s appeal to certainty — a shortcut for when evidence is missing. Sequence isn’t causation. Johnson visited. Talks ended. That’s post hoc — assuming A caused B just because B came after A. It’s a timestamp, not a chain of cause and effect. Assumptions aren’t proof. You start with “Zelensky must be lying,” then use that assumption to reject anything he says. That’s circular reasoning — the argument eats itself. Selective quoting isn’t analysis. You cherry-pick one line from Arakhamia, but ignore the part where he said Ukraine didn’t trust Russia and saw their offer as vague. That’s not oversight — that’s suppressed evidence. Ignoring Bucha isn’t strategy — it’s evasion. You skip over mass graves, civilian executions, and a collapse in trust like they’re background noise. That’s contextomy — removing what breaks your narrative. Speculating on motives isn’t a rebuttal. Claiming “Zelensky just wants to look good” is textbook ad hominem and motive fallacy — attacking the man because the facts don’t help you. False dilemmas don’t strengthen weak arguments. Saying Ukraine had “no choice” but to fight is a false dichotomy — as if public outrage, national will, and agency all vanished overnight. If you’re going to claim someone “ended peace talks,” you need to show how — not just when. You’re not making a case. You’re defending a belief — stitched together from selective fragments, imagined motives, and logic errors. Until then, you’re not proving a thing — you’re just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

You’re accusing others of spreading misinformation while pushing a narrative built on selective quotes and logical fallacies. “B happened after A, therefore A caused B” is a classic post hoc fallacy. Yes, Boris Johnson visited Kyiv on April 9. And yes, Davyd Arakhamia said Johnson advised against signing anything. But he never said Johnson ended a peace deal. He also said Ukraine didn’t trust Russia and saw the offer — neutrality for vague assurances — as unreliable. Meanwhile, the talks were already falling apart. On April 1, the world saw the Bucha massacre. That hardened Ukraine’s position. By April 4, Zelensky said peace was impossible without justice. Putin’s “dead end” remark came after Ukraine rejected Russia’s core demands: neutrality, demilitarization, and ceding territory. That’s not a peace deal — that’s surrender. Johnson’s advice reflected reality. Ukraine couldn’t negotiate while Russia bombed its cities. You suggest it’s suspicious the talks collapsed three days after Johnson’s visit. It’s also when Bucha’s mass graves hit global headlines. So no — not a “pure coincidence,” just a brutal reminder of who Ukraine was dealing with. Correlation isn’t causation — and pretending otherwise is dishonest. Zelensky himself called the idea that Johnson blocked peace “illogical”. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-denies-uk-pm-johnson-dissuaded-him-peace-deal-2023-03-29/ There was no deal to sign. No Western veto. Just another recycled Kremlin myth — clung to by people who should know better. And when someone opens with an insult instead of evidence, it’s usually because they’ve already lost the argument.

It’s ironic. Just as Ho Chi Minh turned to the Soviets and Chinese after the U.S. ignored his pleas for support against French colonialism, Trump-style isolationism today could push other nations — especially those under threat — to turn to China or Russia by necessity, not ideology. When the U.S. steps back from global leadership or abandons allies, it doesn’t create peace — it creates a vacuum. And history shows who steps in.

Throwing around “Liar!” doesn’t make your version true — it just shows you’ve got nothing but headlines and half-quotes. Yes, there were exploratory talks in early 2022. Yes, intermediaries like Naftali Bennett were involved. And yes, Ukraine considered proposals — including neutrality. But no, there was no finalized deal, no formal agreement, and no genuine Russian offer that didn’t require Ukraine to effectively surrender. You cite Davyd Arakhamia — but leave out that he said Russia’s offer was conditional on Ukraine giving up NATO and accepting “neutrality,” with no binding guarantees. Ukraine didn’t reject peace. They rejected a dictated settlement while Russian troops were murdering civilians in Bucha and launching missile strikes during the talks. Even Bennett later clarified that mistrust, not Western pressure, killed the deal. And “major concessions”? Russia wanted capitulation, not compromise. You can toss links from opinion sites like Responsible Statecraft all day, but it doesn’t change the facts: there was no peace agreement ready to sign. Just a Kremlin narrative trying to pin the blame on everyone but the invader. So next time, leave out the name-calling — and bring a full quote, not a fragment. Sources: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-peace-negotiator-says-mood-peace-talks-changed-bucha-russia-2022-4 https://www.axios.com/2023/02/22/israel-russia-invasion-ukraine-bennett-mediation-failure https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/12/zelenskyy-rejects-claim-boris-johnson-talked-him-out-of-2022-peace-deal https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-denies-uk-pm-johnson-dissuaded-him-peace-deal-2023-03-29/