When my mother was in the nursing home, I would visit her every two weeks (it WAS a 5-hour drive), and I could tell as soon as I walked in the door to her room if she had been administered a fentanyl patch, because her head would be lolling about and her tongue hanging out of her mouth. She didn't seem to be in any pain, at least. I grew up in the 60s, so I have some experience with recreational drugs, but, after my recent spinal surgery, I was given a prescription for Oxycodone, and that stuff brings me no joy, it just makes me groggy. Exactly like Mom. I feel bad for the people who get hooked on it--like JD Vance's mother--but it just doesn't ring my bells.
Interesting. The quote (misattributed to Napoleon Fallapart) was also made by a nice young man named Anders Breivik, as his justification for killing 77 people.
I am against the death penalty as well, but I still feel like a life sentence for people like that should involve forcing them to live in the kind of world they were trying to create. But still in prison.
It's too early for me to figure that out just yet.
Today is President's Day, and I was gonna say "Bah! Humbug! but realized that the Scrooge treatment is too good for a day honoring the Abomination. Sure, it's for all other presidents too, but he's the current one, and well on the way to turning this nation into a shithole and a pariah. So my reaction is "meh."
I wonder if Trix might consider restarting the Wonkette Emergency Slush Fund in these trying times. I know there are a lot of Wonkers who are likely to be hit by rising costs as Trump turns everything to shit again. I can't normally do much to help, but I could probably set up a small monthly contribution to The Fund.
I believe there were some people who complained about that, particularly when “Wonkers” no regular had ever heard of began collecting some of the money. At least I seem to recall that I saw a bit of that in the non-comments. The same thing happened when people were posting gofundme requests, which were ultimately banned if not approved by ‘Becca in advance.
I was a lurker for years before I ever commented. Besides, if we're helping people who need help then I don't see too much of a problem, whether they're regular non-commentors or not.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Bedlam) was quoted as comparing T̶w̶e̶e̶l̶o̶n̶ ̶X̶,̶ ̶M̶e̶l̶o̶n̶ ̶H̶u̶s̶k̶,̶ ̶L̶e̶o̶n̶ whatever's Neckbeard Mafia to the 20-somethings know as "The Greatest Generation" for their service in WWII...
This inspired some pretty unWonklike thoughts...
In contrast, I believe that Lonnie Schmuck is partners with another traitor and the para-government activities they're pursuing makes them all criminals of the "Crimes against the people" variety.
"Following illegal orders" is not a defense.
Sometimes I read about how empires past dealt with their traitors. They took such pretty seriously...
This may be a way to stop THEM in their tracks. But what will happen if not all judges use this "vexatious litigant" approach and some who sympathize with the Administration WILL take their cases? Besides, the SC is entirely corrupt.
"'Vexatious litigant’/Is it time for America’s judges to go on strike?
"The Vice President has openly suggested that the executive branch may simply ignore court orders. That statement risks a constitutional crisis because it challenges a bedrock principle of separation of powers: the holding of 1803's Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
If the Trump Administration is willing to test whether judicial authority can be ignored, how can the courts respond? So far, responses have been rhetoric from the Chief Justice, talk of civil-contempt fines (which a defiant executive could refuse to pay), and speculation about contempt charges for agency officials (whom a defiant executive could pardon). The judiciary’s usual tools for forcing compliance with court orders could easily be ineffective if the entire executive branch refuses to comply.
"For over two centuries, Marbury and the concept of judicial review have ensured that no politicians or agency administrators—no matter how powerful—can place themselves above the law.
"But identifying that problem suggests a potential solution. In other contexts, courts identify the party as the problem rather than the order immediately at hand. A body of law has developed about “vexatious litigants” whose filings are simply dismissed out of hand unless they allege an imminent risk of serious harm. A similar body of law is “judicial estoppel,” a doctrine that prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions in separate legal proceedings.
What if the judiciary treated the federal government itself as a vexatious litigant? Imagine courts refusing to hear broad categories of cases where the United States is a party until the executive branch obeys court orders. The agencies and departments that make up the federal government rely heavily on the courts to enforce contracts, prosecute criminal cases, and otherwise resolve a sprawling range of disputes about the operation of government. . A refusal to entertain some — or most — cases from an Administration that disrespects judicial authority would be a drastic but forceful step—and far more effective than imposing fines that will likely not be paid.
The functional equivalent of a “judicial strike” is a radical idea without precedent. But so is an administration openly contemplating the defiance of court orders and a rejection of Marbury. If court orders can be ignored without meaningful consequence, then courts will be losing cases anyway — and the most impactful ones, where the Constitution’s limits on executive power are at issue.
This is a radical proposal. But the truly radical idea is that the executive branch can unilaterally decide, after 200 years of success, to jettison Marbury. If the courts are faced with systematic disobedience of their orders, and choose to respond by focusing exclusively on inadequate remedies, both the judiciary and the American people will be the worse for it.
"For over two centuries, Marbury and the concept of judicial review have ensured that no politicians or agency administrators—no matter how powerful—can place themselves above the law.“
Ummm, the Supremes already declared him to be above the law with that “Presidential Immunity” bullshit they made up. That train has left the station, and he knows it.
It is the wee hours before sunrise on Not-𝘔𝘺-President Day. I have a headache, it is 8 degrees out and the weather guessers are guessing that we're not gonna get many more Fahrenheits...
This is a compelling argument for Go Back To Bed...
"Those weeks in intensive care were really expensive! But I just didn't have time to look both ways before I crossed the road..."
No Kaiju is rising out of the ocean to kill us all, it's going to be the Death of a Thousand Imbeciles and we're going to have to listen to their regrets the whole time.
<Holden admitted that he used a 25-question online quiz to determine his vote rather than researching the candidates because he "didn't have time" amid his 17-hour workdays. He argued that neither party fully aligns with farmers' interests>
Interesting. I watched one of his videos and he specifically says that his funding came as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act. He never mentions Biden's name for credit nor Assmouth's name for blame, at least in the video I watched.
If you follow to his TikTok site he talks about we should “love each other”. I wonder how much love he had for school lunch programs, MedicAide, LBGT rights?
It was available online. It wasn't in the back of a locked filing cabinet in a disused basement whose door bore a sign reading "Beware of the Leopard."
The price of crude oil since the middle of last month...
The Russian military revealed for what it is...
The reality of telling conscripts that their efforts will be required for years more, they won't be paid in real money, and they're going to have to provide much of their own gear...
Putin might be removed from power if he actually mobilized against NATO
Zelenskyy needs something to keep Vlad and Donnie from carving up his country for parts. And Donnie says, "ceasefire by Easter" which means two weeks from never.
Maybe we'll send Drunk Petey or Li'l Marco over there to settle things ...
When does the USA take responsibility for consuming so much fentanyl & other drugs?
After all nobody’s shoving all these drugs down their throats at gunpoint.
When my mother was in the nursing home, I would visit her every two weeks (it WAS a 5-hour drive), and I could tell as soon as I walked in the door to her room if she had been administered a fentanyl patch, because her head would be lolling about and her tongue hanging out of her mouth. She didn't seem to be in any pain, at least. I grew up in the 60s, so I have some experience with recreational drugs, but, after my recent spinal surgery, I was given a prescription for Oxycodone, and that stuff brings me no joy, it just makes me groggy. Exactly like Mom. I feel bad for the people who get hooked on it--like JD Vance's mother--but it just doesn't ring my bells.
Democracies need czars like the pope needs testicles.
Make Ukraine Russian Again.
𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 ‘𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗮𝘆,’ 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗩𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲-𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/europe/ukraine-russia-trump-zelensky-intl/?dicbo=v2-LIUEu2P&hpt=ob_25tp
Holy CRAP!
𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐽𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑔𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑦. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑔𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒-𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦'𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐶𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑎, 𝑛𝑜 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎 ℎ𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑛𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑔𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑛𝑎𝑝 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑠.
Scroll down for the video
https://www.upworthy.com/largest-proof-of-current-climate-catastrophe-ever-caught-on-camera-ex1
It’s nice he recognized the threat.
Also too, “This article originally appeared 10 years ago.”
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law’
He just endorsed his own demise.
Let's skip Elba, let's skip St Helena, exile altogether, for the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Leavenworth.
Fuck all that. Straight to the Deathbed.
Interesting. The quote (misattributed to Napoleon Fallapart) was also made by a nice young man named Anders Breivik, as his justification for killing 77 people.
That's a LOT of people.
And what was it he thought he was saving his country from?
(there were too many words there that I wanted to put in scare quotes)
"Cultural Marxism," in the words of his manifesto. Basically, racism.
He's still in prison, Norway having no death penalty.
He was found to have a narcissistic personality disorder. And surprise he is an avowed Trump supporter.
I am against the death penalty as well, but I still feel like a life sentence for people like that should involve forcing them to live in the kind of world they were trying to create. But still in prison.
It's too early for me to figure that out just yet.
Today is President's Day, and I was gonna say "Bah! Humbug! but realized that the Scrooge treatment is too good for a day honoring the Abomination. Sure, it's for all other presidents too, but he's the current one, and well on the way to turning this nation into a shithole and a pariah. So my reaction is "meh."
Today is the 4th anniversary of Rush Limbaugh's death. I'm celebrating that.
https://youtu.be/KJohGa66FJM?si=Towti2dJdVoA0bjx
Oh Happy Day
I wonder if Trix might consider restarting the Wonkette Emergency Slush Fund in these trying times. I know there are a lot of Wonkers who are likely to be hit by rising costs as Trump turns everything to shit again. I can't normally do much to help, but I could probably set up a small monthly contribution to The Fund.
I believe there were some people who complained about that, particularly when “Wonkers” no regular had ever heard of began collecting some of the money. At least I seem to recall that I saw a bit of that in the non-comments. The same thing happened when people were posting gofundme requests, which were ultimately banned if not approved by ‘Becca in advance.
I was a lurker for years before I ever commented. Besides, if we're helping people who need help then I don't see too much of a problem, whether they're regular non-commentors or not.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Bedlam) was quoted as comparing T̶w̶e̶e̶l̶o̶n̶ ̶X̶,̶ ̶M̶e̶l̶o̶n̶ ̶H̶u̶s̶k̶,̶ ̶L̶e̶o̶n̶ whatever's Neckbeard Mafia to the 20-somethings know as "The Greatest Generation" for their service in WWII...
This inspired some pretty unWonklike thoughts...
In contrast, I believe that Lonnie Schmuck is partners with another traitor and the para-government activities they're pursuing makes them all criminals of the "Crimes against the people" variety.
"Following illegal orders" is not a defense.
Sometimes I read about how empires past dealt with their traitors. They took such pretty seriously...
This may be a way to stop THEM in their tracks. But what will happen if not all judges use this "vexatious litigant" approach and some who sympathize with the Administration WILL take their cases? Besides, the SC is entirely corrupt.
"'Vexatious litigant’/Is it time for America’s judges to go on strike?
https://www.salon.com/2025/02/15/is-it-time-for-americas-to-go-on-strike/
"The Vice President has openly suggested that the executive branch may simply ignore court orders. That statement risks a constitutional crisis because it challenges a bedrock principle of separation of powers: the holding of 1803's Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
If the Trump Administration is willing to test whether judicial authority can be ignored, how can the courts respond? So far, responses have been rhetoric from the Chief Justice, talk of civil-contempt fines (which a defiant executive could refuse to pay), and speculation about contempt charges for agency officials (whom a defiant executive could pardon). The judiciary’s usual tools for forcing compliance with court orders could easily be ineffective if the entire executive branch refuses to comply.
"For over two centuries, Marbury and the concept of judicial review have ensured that no politicians or agency administrators—no matter how powerful—can place themselves above the law.
"But identifying that problem suggests a potential solution. In other contexts, courts identify the party as the problem rather than the order immediately at hand. A body of law has developed about “vexatious litigants” whose filings are simply dismissed out of hand unless they allege an imminent risk of serious harm. A similar body of law is “judicial estoppel,” a doctrine that prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions in separate legal proceedings.
What if the judiciary treated the federal government itself as a vexatious litigant? Imagine courts refusing to hear broad categories of cases where the United States is a party until the executive branch obeys court orders. The agencies and departments that make up the federal government rely heavily on the courts to enforce contracts, prosecute criminal cases, and otherwise resolve a sprawling range of disputes about the operation of government. . A refusal to entertain some — or most — cases from an Administration that disrespects judicial authority would be a drastic but forceful step—and far more effective than imposing fines that will likely not be paid.
The functional equivalent of a “judicial strike” is a radical idea without precedent. But so is an administration openly contemplating the defiance of court orders and a rejection of Marbury. If court orders can be ignored without meaningful consequence, then courts will be losing cases anyway — and the most impactful ones, where the Constitution’s limits on executive power are at issue.
This is a radical proposal. But the truly radical idea is that the executive branch can unilaterally decide, after 200 years of success, to jettison Marbury. If the courts are faced with systematic disobedience of their orders, and choose to respond by focusing exclusively on inadequate remedies, both the judiciary and the American people will be the worse for it.
"For over two centuries, Marbury and the concept of judicial review have ensured that no politicians or agency administrators—no matter how powerful—can place themselves above the law.“
Ummm, the Supremes already declared him to be above the law with that “Presidential Immunity” bullshit they made up. That train has left the station, and he knows it.
The Homunculus will issue an imperial ukase repealing Marbury v Madison.
Or just get his DOGE thuggies to stop their paychecks.
I ran across a headline earlier this morning that the Muskies are trying to get access to the IRS' taxpayer database.
I thought they already gained administrators access at Treasury, weeks ago.
Isn't that pretty much every one of us? I mean even people who don't have to pay DO have to file, right?
Yep.
Fact check: true. [Pearls Before Swine]
https://assets.amuniversal.com/29f21ab0ca11013d8f99005056a9545d
Rat is my spirit animal.
Laters sheeple, I have to fanny about pointlessly.
https://youtu.be/pB0gV9NFruY?si=oXsgpOjLw6l8zMf6
We'll have none of that. All fannying about must be done pointedly.
Pointed about-fannying is the generally accepted practice...
It's way to chilly here to be waving those around.
Monarchical power?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXGRp7XefUg
It is the wee hours before sunrise on Not-𝘔𝘺-President Day. I have a headache, it is 8 degrees out and the weather guessers are guessing that we're not gonna get many more Fahrenheits...
This is a compelling argument for Go Back To Bed...
I'm convinced, but can't sleep anyway...
This poor fella… if only there had been some written plan that he could have researched, some project plan, something that would have let him know…
https://www.iheart.com/content/2025-02-11-trumper-who-could-lose-farm-says-he-had-no-time-to-research-before-voting/
Maybe we could take up a collection?
"Those weeks in intensive care were really expensive! But I just didn't have time to look both ways before I crossed the road..."
No Kaiju is rising out of the ocean to kill us all, it's going to be the Death of a Thousand Imbeciles and we're going to have to listen to their regrets the whole time.
I wonder who's going to be squealing the loudest? The Trump voters or the not-voters?
A contest for someone else to judge... I'd be all Queen of Hearts, yelling "Off with their heads!"
<Holden admitted that he used a 25-question online quiz to determine his vote rather than researching the candidates because he "didn't have time" amid his 17-hour workdays. He argued that neither party fully aligns with farmers' interests>
Interesting. I watched one of his videos and he specifically says that his funding came as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act. He never mentions Biden's name for credit nor Assmouth's name for blame, at least in the video I watched.
He's lying. He figured cuz, white, he'd be okay.
If you follow to his TikTok site he talks about we should “love each other”. I wonder how much love he had for school lunch programs, MedicAide, LBGT rights?
He can have all my thoughts and prayers.
He can have the sweat off my balls for ice water.
Maybe he shouldn't make life altering decisions based on no research.
"He Had No 'Time To Research'"
I guess farmers don't sit on the terlet? Isn't that where ALL, extensive and detailed research is performed?
He had eight years from Trump's first election.
I guess no one reminded him to do his research?
EDIT: Also too, First Generation Farmer? It already had fail written all over it.
It was available online. It wasn't in the back of a locked filing cabinet in a disused basement whose door bore a sign reading "Beware of the Leopard."
Although the sign might have been an indication.
"So, this all seems horrible."
𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 150,000 𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘉𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦-𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳, 𝘡𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘬𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺.
"𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 (𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘝𝘭𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘳) 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖," 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥.
'𝗣𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢,' 𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗡𝗕𝗖 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀
https://kyivindependent.com/putin-will-wage-war-against-nato-zelensky-tells-nbc-news/?mc_cid=fa0a514825
The Ruble at historic lows...
Russia plowing through their gold reserves...
The price of crude oil since the middle of last month...
The Russian military revealed for what it is...
The reality of telling conscripts that their efforts will be required for years more, they won't be paid in real money, and they're going to have to provide much of their own gear...
Putin might be removed from power if he actually mobilized against NATO
Man with interest in getting NATO involved says thing to get NATO involved. May be true, may not be.
Lukashenko's Pooty's bottom, and I'm sure NATO has the same ELINT, SIGINT and HUMINT data Ukraine has.
Russia slamming a drone into the Chernobyl sarcophagus might have been by design.
Zelenskyy needs something to keep Vlad and Donnie from carving up his country for parts. And Donnie says, "ceasefire by Easter" which means two weeks from never.
Maybe we'll send Drunk Petey or Li'l Marco over there to settle things ...
Rubio's traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet with Russian FM Lavrov; a Ukrainian delegation is also expected.