RuSSia Is A Terrorist State 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

ruSSia Is A Terrorist State 🤬🤬🤬

This photo must be everywhere today. russian monsters struck a park in Kharkiv region, killing a baby and two women. At least 14 more people were wounded, including 7 children. This is the terror Trump supports.

This is a baby killed in a baby stroller by russian monsters in broad daylight‼️ Russia struck the central park in Nova Vodolaha, Kharkiv region, with a jet-powered drone while it was packed with people and families. They killed at least 3, a baby and two women, and injured at least 14 more.

A horrific Russian strike in the Kharkiv region. A “shahed” struck people directly – in a park near an ordinary café. Pure atrocity. Six people were killed, including children. A little girl was killed in a stroller – her name was Angelina, she was just over a year old, born in August 2025… Her mother’s name was Inna. She died in the hospital… Another girl who was killed was 11 years old. My condolences to their families and loved ones. Another 14 people were injured, including six more children. I am grateful to everyone who supports Ukraine under these circumstances and helps us shoot down “shaheds,” shoot down missiles, and stop Russian assaults. These are horrific photos, but behind them are shattered lives and the truth about this war. Lives must be protected. Ukraine needs air defense. You can't think about making money with Russia as long as it continues its asinine war. We ask that sanctions on Russia stay in place as long as the killings continue. We ask America to be strong, and we ask it to apply the Lindsey Graham law. We ask Europe to continue its support. We ask that everything possible be done to bring peace and guarantee security. Ukraine wants peace. It is Russia that has insisted on continuing the killing all this time. The world has enough strength to stop the war. That strength must finally be used – against the murderers.

Супер інтелект.

quick do another kickflip

New press secretary announced

Sir Richard Branson has accused Donald Trump of being “an appeaser to autocrats and dictators”. The outspoken Virgin Group founder criticised Trump on LinkedIn in response to reports that the US president had blocked Ukraine from the Pentagon’s Starshield system, a critical defensive and battlefield support system. 🔗 telegraph.co.uk/business/202…

No, Ted. It's a Porsche, not a circus attraction.

Ukraine’s SkyFall has developed StarGate, a heavy CASEVAC drone designed to evacuate wounded troops from frontline kill zones under fire and across minefields. The six-rotor drone can carry up to 150 kg, fly 15 km one way and reach 105 km/h. It uses Starlink and SkyFall’s L-Link, while integrated AI allows navigation without GPS and can return the aircraft to safety if communications are completely lost. Frontline testing began with a Ukrainian combat brigade in October. #Ukraine

Mission S. Authentic. Consistent. Timeless. A glimpse into the future - shaped by our heritage. Mid-engine architecture. A focus on the driver and the driving experience. Call it a love letter.

Mission S. Everything a sports car needs. Nothing more.

RT @archer_rs: The car was invented in Germany The cold-gas thruster (CGT) system was invented in France The fan assisted downforce set up…

This is the size of the 10,000 psi nitrogen tank in the "flying" Tesla car. It's basically a bomb. Definitely not a production car.

China is a massive country. China can lose a million men, and they have lots of other millions of men. The United States doesn't have that kind of manpower, so the USA should surrender to China.

I'm not an Elon hater. I'm just telling you the Honest Truth: This is a marketing stunt. The technology is quite old. Just nobody ever thought of bolting it on a car. Because it's pointless. Porsche or Ferrari could also build something like this if they wanted, but they don't, because it's not worth it for them. It's worth it for Elon though, because his entire brand is all about having the halo of futurism. His marketing scales especially well with tech gimmicks like this, which is why he is financially incentivised to do them, while others aren't. Again, I'm not hating, but actually educating yall. This is not engineering genius. It's marketing genius.

President of the USA Bill Clinton in 1994: "Thanks to the Ukrainian parliament, you are removing the threat of nuclear power and laying the groundwork for an era of peace with your neighbours. I salute the courage you have shown. America will stand with you to support your independence, your territorial integrity, and your reforms. We are bound together by dedication to peace."

This is who Trump is supporting. Russia just attacked a supermarket in Odessa. Ukraine filled with innocent civilians. Why are we supporting the bad guys?

Considering the repeated calls to replace Starlink in the EU, followed by the usual snarky comments, mostly from Americans, about how SpaceX is "irreplaceable" and Europe is supposedly incapable of competing, I think it's worth looking at some facts. First of all, EU countries have launched hundreds of satellites over the past decade, with annual deployments growing from just 16 in 2015 to 135 in 2025. Eutelsat OneWeb already provides continuous coverage across Europe with more than 600 satellites On top of that, the EU is developing IRIS², a constellation of ~350 satellites, with the first launches scheduled for 2029. The EU's GOVSATCOM programme has already been operational since January 2026, pooling satellite capacity from member states for secure government communications. Now, let's get to the actual argument. Is Europe behind SpaceX, with its thousands of satellites in orbit? Absolutely. At the moment, it's not even close. Starlink has significantly cheaper consumer terminals, much greater network capacity, a larger constellation and a far more accessible service for ordinary customers. No argument here. But that's also part of the problem. Starlink is simply a better and more affordable product for most consumers right now, so customers and government contracts naturally gravitate towards SpaceX, making it harder for European competitors to attract the revenue and investment needed to catch up. Let's also not pretend SpaceX appeared out of nowhere. It benefited from decades of American aerospace infrastructure, NASA research, publicly funded programs and government contracts, alongside its own substantial private capital Putting a European startup, or even a single country's space agency, against that entire ecosystem is a losing proposition from the beginning. But why should it stay that way? Europe already has the aerospace industry, launch facilities, technological expertise and financial resources to develop a competitive alternative. To launch satellites successfully and cheap you need to decrease the launch cost. Currently, European rocket Ariane 6 is generally more expensive than Falcon 9, and Europe still lacks a comparable operational reusable launcher. But projects like Themis and Maia are already in development. If Europe keeps pouring money into SpaceX, how exactly do you expect these European projects to become competitive? The same applies to satellite terminals. SpaceX has excelled at mass-producing consumer-friendly equipment costing a few hundred dollars, while comparable OneWeb equipment can cost several thousand. But that advantage comes from economies of scale, production efficiency, mass adoption and, sometimes, subsidising hardware to gain market share. You can't have mass adoption if you mass adopt Starlink Europe doesn't need to replicate Starlink's entire global network to build a viable alternative. The objective is sufficient coverage, capacity and reliability across Europe and neighbouring regions, not necessarily every random island in the Pacific or remote village in the Brazilian Amazon - something that SpaceX does much better. That's a much more realistic objective than immediately matching Starlink worldwide. There are several ways to achieve this: direct investment, research funding, initial subsidies, long-term government contracts and procurement policies prioritising European satellite providers wherever feasible, particularly for critical infrastructure. In strategically sensitive areas, I'd go even further and eliminate dependence on SpaceX entirely wherever a viable European alternative exists. Which brings us to national security. Starlink is an American commercial system subject to US jurisdiction, while Starshield is specifically designed for US government and military customers. Starlink's own terms allow the company to suspend services following requests or orders from government agencies. Now imagine a hypothetical scenario where the US attempts to annex Greenland militarily. Would you really want critical European communications infrastructure dependent on an American company that could could simply switch off everything on political demand? You simply cannot outsource your country's critical communications infrastructure to a foreign provider and pretend there are no strategic risks involved. I don't like writing it, but US is not a reliable partner. And beyond security, it's also about money and long-term economics. European money, investment and talent should stay in Europe, not continuously flow to America. Do you want European aerospace graduates to have actual career opportunities in Europe, instead of feeling they need to move to the US? Do you want European companies building rockets, satellites, manufacturing facilities and research centres, creating skilled jobs and attracting investment? None of that happens if your entire strategy is to keep buying American Starlink terminals while complaining that European alternatives are too expensive or technologically inferior. There's a massive difference between saying Europe cannot fully replace Starlink today and claiming that Europe is fundamentally incapable of developing a competitive alternative, while quoting memes about muslim immigrants and plastic bottle caps. And if Europe keeps financing its competitors instead of building its own capabilities, SpaceX will indeed remain "irreplaceable". Not because Europe can't compete, but because it is not committed to the competition.