Don't forget they are very comfortable

>Arty can easily be taken out by drones

And it can be reproduced as quickly as it's taken out. Also drones themselves can be targeted by artillery or other drones which Russia has.

As it is now Russia appears to have everything they need to drag out this conflict as long as possible. They are very skilled at creating unending conflict.

> If they can only shell the border, it isn't that useful

This is really way to simple. Targeted long range munitions are important, but if you have enough shells to fire off you will eventually hit something of value. During WW1 they fired off like a billion shells in the first year alone and I'm sure you've seen the pictures of what the western front looked like during WW1. Russia may not be able to strike Kyiv accurately for much longer but they can still strike areas of logistical importance and make it hard for Ukraine to reinforce their troops.

Attacking the Ukrainian cities deep in Ukraine were mostly for morale purposes. These were operations to continue to try and get people living in Ukraine to leave. Regular less accurate artillery has been vital to the Russians ability to strike Ukrainian front line positions since the beginning of the war.

Yeah but he also says tied to that they already have found external aid and will continue to look for it to help keep up with their military output. He doesn't say they are going to run out of stuff to shoot at Ukraine anytime soon. This is just another example of what I said in my comment, where the headlines make it seem much worse than it is.

I feel like the "Russia is going to run out of ammo" is all spin from media headlines. I don't think any of the military leaders/analysts of the world have said Russia will run out of ammo on any level outside of their more sophisticated stuff that require western tech. It's a big deal still but I feel like I see a lot of headlines trying to spin it as if Russia won't be able to keep firing shit at Ukraine for much longer and that probably isn't true.

FTX falling because of liquidity issues and costing investors 10's of billions of dollars is a prime example of why the SEC exists to protect people. SEC isn't perfect and I'm sure there are many retail investors out there that hold a similar point of view, but FTX's collapse is quite literally a result of a lack of regulation to protect investors.

FTX would almost certainly be fine right now if they were regulated by the SEC which would have mandated they had adequate liquidity and could have prevented the "Bank run" that essentially happened.

Ooh thank you, was not aware of that.

In defense of America's Stonehenge, I don't know of anyone calling it that before the 2020's, they were called the Georgia guide stones for most of their existence and no one claimed them to be ancient, we know when they were built, and we kind of know who built it.

Most definitely. From my understanding people have been throwing runes on stones or trees and claiming the vikings did it for many decades now, and every time they are proven to be fake and made with modern equipment.

Russia/nato have accidentally shot at each other before and even shot down planes but under murky enough waters no one feels like there is any significant need to retaliate. If a rocket hit the center of Berlin and it caused a mass casualty crisis, I'd be worried. But a malfunctioning rocket hitting a tree in the middle of some woods which is the far more likely outcome is not a big enough deal that nato would start considering article v