Between the Russia and theUkraine The agreement is far away and whoever expected to be close was wrong. But today the most interesting article is that of Marco Labor.
You must know that yesterday the Ukrainians scored a fabulous intelligence operation by destroying 41 bombers, that is 34 percent of the Russian air and missile potential. They did it without hurting or killing even a civilian. And what can Travaglio write today? It is embarrassing: it essentially says that the consequence of the raid will be a massacre of Ukrainians due to the obvious Russian retaliation. Who should such an irrelevant act of war?
Then, according to the thesis of Laborthe Ukrainians went to get the bombers out (that the Russians used to release bombs and missiles to kill Ukrainian civilians), but since Moscow will now respond it was better not to do it. At this point, according to the doctrine Travaglio, Orsini and other genes of geopolitics, should only surrender? In short: the Russians attack them, conquer a little territory and the Ukrainians can resist but not too much because if they start an operation to destroy and death machines (with which they are attacked) they are balls since they will receive a retaliation.
But why, excuse me: have there no missiles against civilians a week ago? Two weeks ago they did not bomb the cities. I want to understand this logic for which within a war if one makes a brilliant intelligence military operation like the one that was done yesterday, this will create a Russian reaction as if the Russians had not attacked. But what the caz ** of logic is, but what should they do?
from the leek soup