Real Stuff: Ukraine confirms new Kursk offensive, says it hit Russian command post The apparent escalation comes as both sides fight to improve their battlefield positions before Trump returns to the White House Reading Time: 2 minutes Why you can trust SCMP 0 Listen Further Reading Russia says it captures ‘important logistics hub’ in eastern Ukraine Macron affirms Trump has ‘solid ally’ in France, urges realism from Ukraine over territory Ukraine to ask allies for boost to air defences at Germany meeting, Zelensky says Discover MORE stories on Ukraine war FOLLOW now and stay updated with Swedish navy recovers anchor of tanker suspected of Baltic Sea cable damage Opinion | China-North Korea relations start the new year on a new low Macron affirms Trump has ‘solid ally’ in France, urges realism from Ukraine over territory related topics Ukraine war Ukraine | Russia | War and conflict | Defence | North Korea | Donald Trump A destroyed Russian tank sits on a roadside near the town of Sudzha, in the Kursk region, in August 2024. Photo: AP Reuters Published: 1:29am, 8 Jan 2025Updated: 2:45am, 8 Jan 2025 Ukraine said on Tuesday its forces were “commencing new offensive actions” in Russia’s western Kursk region, in its first substantive remarks two days after Russian reports of a renewed Ukrainian thrust in the area. Ukraine first seized part of the Kursk region in a surprise incursion last August, and it has held territory there for five months despite losing some ground. The Russian defence ministry said on Sunday that Kyiv had launched a new counter-attack. On Tuesday, Ukraine’s general staff, which keeps a tight lid on information out of the area for the security of its operation there, said Kyiv’s military had hit a Russian command post near the Kursk region’s settlement of Belaya. The strike and other recent operations in the region were coordinated with Ukrainian ground forces who “are currently commencing new offensive operations” against Russian troops, it said. The military later edited out any mention of a new attack in the Telegram statement, replacing the phrase with the much vaguer “combat operations”. It provided no explanation. At least 100 North Korean soldiers killed in Ukraine war, says Seoul lawmaker Russia’s defence ministry, which has characterised the Ukrainian counter-attack as bungled over the last two days, said in a statement that its troops had carried out strikes on Ukrainian units in the Kursk region. It listed six locations where it said its forces had defeated Ukrainian brigades, and seven more – including one on the Ukrainian side of the border – where it said it had carried out strikes on Ukrainian troops and equipment. Reuters could not independently verify battlefield reports from either side. The apparent escalation in the fighting in the Kursk region comes at a critical time for Ukraine, whose outnumbered and outgunned troops are struggling to repel Russian advances in the east. Capturing and retaining a slice of Russian territory in the Kursk region has given Ukraine a bargaining chip in potential peace talks, as both sides fight to improve their battlefield positions before Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The US president-elect, who will be sworn in on January 20 – has repeatedly said he will end the nearly three-year-old war quickly, but without saying how. The US-based Institute for the Study of War said geolocated footage from the region published on Sunday and Monday indicated recent Ukrainian advances in three areas northeast of the town of Sudzha. It said Russian forces were trying to attack elsewhere in the region. Russian military bloggers reported fighting in Malaya Loknya, northwest of Sudzha. Ukraine’s offensive in the Kursk region has come at a cost. Late in 2024 Russian forces advanced in eastern Ukraine at the fastest pace since 2022. Their troops control about a fifth of Ukraine’s territory. Western and Ukrainian assessments say Russia also has about 11,000 troops from its ally North Korea fighting with its own forces in the region. Russia has neither confirmed nor denied their presence. Ukraine and the United States say large numbers have been killed, with US Secretary Antony Blinken giving a figure on Monday of more than 1,000 North Koreans dead or wounded. Ukraine’s special forces said on Tuesday they had killed 13 North Korean soldiers, and posted photos on Telegram which they said showed their bodies and ID documents. In a regular update, Kyiv’s general staff said there had been 27 Russian attacks in the Kursk region on Tuesday so far.
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment