LosLobo

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/

It’s worth adding that Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia didn’t simply “fall” to communism in a vacuum. These countries turned to the Soviet Union and China because they were being bombed, invaded, or manipulated — often with U.S. support for colonial powers like the French. Ho Chi Minh even wrote to President Truman in 1945, appealing for support to rid Vietnam of French colonial rule — invoking the same principles the U.S. had used to gain independence from Britain. He was ignored. Had the U.S. backed anti-colonial self-determination instead of siding with France, the Cold War landscape in Southeast Asia could have looked very different.

Actually, there wasn’t. Nice fairytale, with a Kremlin watermark on it. Yes, there were peace talks in Istanbul in early 2022 — but they stalled before Boris Johnson ever set foot in Kyiv. The Bucha massacre made sure of that. Ukraine wasn’t about to shake hands with a butcher. Zelensky didn’t walk away because Johnson or Biden told him to. He walked because Russia demanded Ukraine disarm and surrender territory — in other words, capitulate. Oh, and your “Russia gave a last chance for peace” line? That’s rich, coming from the side launching missiles at maternity wards and annexing land mid-negotiation. If Putin wanted peace, he’d withdraw from all of Ukraine. Until then, save the bedtime stories.

Seems Musk didn’t eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse — he perpetrated it. DOGE promised $2 trillion in cuts. It saved just $65 billion. And the cost of saving that? Around $160 billion — in rehire expenses, lost services, and broken systems, according to independent analysis. And the human cost? Over 300,000 deaths in four months, including more than 200,000 children — modeled by Dr. Brooke Nichols at Boston University — after funding collapsed for USAID, PEPFAR, and public health programs. You wanted a name? Babagana Bukar Mohammed. Age 7. Nigeria. He died after the USAID-funded clinic his family relied on was shuttered. He’s one of many. And it seems... you're OK with that.

Where’s your receipts?

'Thou dost project too much.' – W. Shakespeare, 1564–1616

Musk’s drug use won’t be what history remembers. What will be remembered is the legacy of DOGE under Musk — and the human cost of policies that slashed global health funding, gutted oversight, and left millions without critical care. Programs cut included USAID, PEPFAR, and NIH initiatives 300,000 deaths in just four months, including over 200,000 children A projected 3.6 million avoidable deaths over four years A net fiscal loss of $95 billion, all for just 3.25% of the promised savings Whether Musk being high was the reason or not is irrelevant. History won’t remember the pills — it’ll remember the lives lost. Sources: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/usaid-doge-deaths-children-cuts-7nb83dfkp https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doge-cuts-cost-135-billion-analysis-elon-musk-department-of-government-efficiency/ https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-leaving-doge-reaction-white-house-trump-2025-5

Translation : 'I hate the USA'.

The 9 episodes are the complete season — suspect more will follow. Really enjoyed it — a Slow Horses with a Scots twist.

Just dropped 9 episodes!

I am really enjoying it --- looking forward to Episode 9 Finale being released tomorrow.

I too had an Altis, a 2011 1850 cc ---great car, had it for six years. I was always worried about it getting flooded, came close many times. Once flooded i hear it's very hard to get the smell out. I find the 210mm ground clearance on the Yaris Cross, a god sent for the flooded roads where I live. What model Yaris did you buy?