Here's a thought
Wouldn't it be kind of an economic "nuke" to close the strait of Hormuz and bomb every major oil facility in the comprador states in the middle east? The oil price would skyrocket which would be political death sentence to many Western politicians
[probably not a very original thought]
visited 
Because they've taken out a large portion of Iran's launchers. Combine that with much of their leadership being dead or in hiding (including the Supreme Leader), you're getting very weak responses at this point.
I honestly don't know what the point is now in launching. If I'm the rocket guy, I'm fucking right off to the house and waiting for the new regime to take over.
That was enough
Don’t you think Russia is stalling because of the confidence it has gained from its territorial gains on the battlefield? They recently advanced in the Sumy region but are also slowly moving forward in the east. Meanwhile, your elite units are forced to operate a separate Spanish-language recruitment platform, presumably targeting Latin American mercenaries rather than Spanish citizens.
You’re painting a generalized picture. It might seem like the end of the world is approaching from here, 10,000 kilometers away… 
… Russia is not gaining territory on the battlefield?
If Ukraine stops resisting, that 10,000 kilometers could shrink considerably, and we would face much greater challenges. As for Western soldiers, the Ukrainian army operates on a contractual basis, supplemented by mobilization and the joining of volunteers. At the beginning of the war, soldiers arrived from several countries to fight for Ukraine, but their numbers are incomparable to the 12,000 North Koreans recruited by Russia, for example. In our country, including Russians and Belarusians fighting for the freedom of their own homeland, we are not talking about thousands.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is struggling with mobilization, and the recruitment of people aged 18–24, which began in February, is not progressing as hoped.
Mobilization is a problem in every war. Ukraine is no exception, as we want the war to end. People are getting tired. We can mobilize 27,000 people a month, while the Russians can mobilize 40,000 to 50,000 because their losses are greater. Mobilization is possible in our country because of the state of war. No one else has any experience in how to stop Putin. We were the ones who stopped him. You are right in that this is a difficult period. We did not mobilize 18- to 24-year-olds, but offered them one-year contracts. I have never spoken about this before, but since you asked, I will tell you what I think, because it is a sensitive issue: I do not believe that we should mobilize people from the age of 18, as the leaders of other countries have thought. Operation Spider Web has shown that it is not the number of people that matters, but weapons and technology. And money and exerting pressure. The sanctions would target the money that the Russians are using to finance the war. However, when it comes to sanctions, as Western partners list the reasons why they did not decide to impose them, they include that Ukraine did not mobilize people aged 18 and above.
To be honest, we gave 18- to 24-year-olds the opportunity to show that they can serve if our partners want them to. We have now given them that opportunity, in accordance with our legislation. But in the meantime, thousands are fighting on the front lines without adequate weapons.
Dems would be much more civil while they were tear-gassing protestors
Hanlon's Razor
The worldview he learned from his father will affect not only 1.4bn Chinese people, but the whole of humanity.
They just have to include this quote in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Great Man Theory
That being said,how can the Russians be so careless with a leg of their nuclear triad?
Well it seems like according to the START treaty and/or other nuclear treaties they gad their nuclear bombers in the open precisely as part of nuclear deescalation
In fact, rather than being parked in shelters or under well-protected concrete structures, these aircraft were parked in plain sight of satellites, on open tarmac in clearly marked bays, making them easily detectable by US/NATO spy satellites.
As strange as it may sound, Russian bombers could have been parked in the open for exactly this reason: so that they can be spotted or detected by US satellites.
“FYI, those bombers that were hit HAVE to be out in full view due to nuclear treaty obligations. Zelenskyy took advantage of that,” General Flynn noted on X.
So now that's out of the window
(Though the FSB did fuck up spectacularly about this)
Possibilities
"My poor 31-year-old baby boy got kidnapped from his Douglas A-4 Skyhawk when he was dropping bombs on people on the other side of the world"
I remember a lib seething at me when I called John McCain a war criminal (when he was clearly involved in bombing North Vietnam), demanding proof that John McCain himself personally have ever dropped bombs on civilians
You are arguing in bad faith. Disengage.
Nah, this is a 100% pure shitlib take:
You clearly support Russia's pointless territorial grab in the Ukraine.
While I vehemently disagree with the soft pro Ukraine takes he has,I won't shed tears over them losing some bombers.
What is astounding is that (if we put Israel to the side for a bit), and consider other Western states, like the EU... well even they don't seem to respect the fact that Iran could fuck up European economy for several years in a single night of bombing