If it convinces a soldier to mobilize it worked. That's all this cope coop is designed to do.
That'll buy a lot of Ramen noodles from the commissary.
He could simply get parole, but if he does get any Jail time it will be delayed until his defence team have exhausted their appeals. Definitely won't see jail before the election sadly.
I'm no expert, but at first glance that looks like a BLEVE to me instead of ordnance detonation. Too much fuel slowly burning off after the fact. Could very well have been a strike that hit a fuel truck or something ofc, but my bet is either neglect or sabotage of some fuel store.
Edit: oh, and the falling large debris in the last clip of the actual explosion is why you do not assume being anywhere near the blast radius is safe. If you ever see a fuel tank of any type burning you turn and run and get to cover strong enough to withstand whatever is burning landing on it from 2km high.
There's nothing 'disingenuous' about calling it a 'loss'. It clearly states they posted a 7 bill NET loss. Not projected, not relative to the past... net. loss. They paid $7 bill to stay in business this year and are cancelling dividends. Their sales of gas reduce by more than 50% in 1 year. They aren't 'welcoming' anything. They are praying doing business in Asian markets will be enough to bring them back to profitability and the latter half of the article makes it clear this is very unlikely for a few years at least.
This is imo the best news I've read all year in that it shows strong evidence the sanctions are working. I just hope they hurt enough that Russia retreats from Ukraine, and gives up their plan of continental conquest for good, but I'm not holding my breath.
Right now Russia is not forcing anybody in combat.
There are numerous examples of Russia conscripting unwilling 'volunteers' as punishment for criminal offences, protesting, etc... Additionally, a policy of 'advance or be shot' strains the credulity of the claim 'nobody is being forced into combat'.
I was going to remove this post for not being explicitly related to Ukraine but opted to leave it up so this question could be asked and answered for those that don't know the reason(s). In the future the answer should be more polite as this is one of the last places on Lemmy where the realities of this war are disseminated without an obvious pro-Russian bias, and good questions should be encouraged.
;tldw Video claims PBJ time singer was incorrectly attributed to Jermaine Fuller (who is also alleged to be Snoop Dog's brother in-law) and spends 12 minutes describing their entire 'research' path to discovering DJ Chipman is the actual singer with 'Raylo and His Dawgs' co-producing. I have no idea what the latter half of the video rambles on about.
2 Things:
Firstly, Article 5 does not apply to OP's question until Estonia the nation gets attacked. Support troops sent to Ukraine that came under attack could not be used to trigger that article. This is the risk they take.
Second, you misunderstand the wording of Article 5 during an hypothetical attack on a member nation directly. It is not subjective. "An attack on one IS an attack on all". ALL nations would act as if they are under attack. It is their individual responses that are where any possible 'subjectiveness' kicks in meaning each nation would send what it CAN, not everything and the kitchen sink without regard for its own security. That is what that means. This idea that a member nation required to behave like it is under attack would do nothing is... misguided.
Cyka Blyat!
Astronaut creds please!
Boeing logo prominently displayed