This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (Twitter)
US Treasury Secretary: So, we are going to either announce after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions.
US Treasury Secretary: So, we are going to either announce after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions.
🤡1😴1
Necro Mancer (Twitter)
#Копейск, Челябинская обл., 22/10/25: на одном из предприятий города (предположительно, завод пластмасс) произошёл нехилый хлопок, есть жертвы, следите за обновлениями
https://www.tg-me.com/alexeytexlerofficial/2911 #Текслер
#Копейск, Челябинская обл., 22/10/25: на одном из предприятий города (предположительно, завод пластмасс) произошёл нехилый хлопок, есть жертвы, следите за обновлениями
https://www.tg-me.com/alexeytexlerofficial/2911 #Текслер
🥰5🔥2❤1🍌1
IgorGirkin (Twitter)
Chelyabinsk debris situation confirmed https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1981079402008953232#m
Chelyabinsk debris situation confirmed https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1981079402008953232#m
😁6👍1🔥1👌1
Status-6 (Twitter)
RT @kaitlancollins: News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
RT @kaitlancollins: News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
🙏1
Status-6 (Twitter)
CCTV camera shows that at least one explosion occurred in the area of the "Plastmass" plant in Kopeysk.
The plant specializes in the production of artillery ammunition and other ordnance.
CCTV location: 55.1166667, 61.6127778
"Plastmass" plant location: 55.1266667, 61.5741667
From 2019:
"Today, JSC 'Plastmass Plant' is a major enterprise in the city of Kopeysk. The company is practically the only operating manufacturer in the country of ammunition for field and tank weapons, as well as unguided air-to-air missiles of the S5 and S8 types. It also possesses technologies for the refurbishment of ammunition for practical purposes, as well as technologies for the disposal of ammunition with expired service life. The products manufactured by the plant are of strategic importance, constitute the main firepower of modern artillery and attack aircraft, and ensure national security and defense...
Перейти на оригинальный пост
CCTV camera shows that at least one explosion occurred in the area of the "Plastmass" plant in Kopeysk.
The plant specializes in the production of artillery ammunition and other ordnance.
CCTV location: 55.1166667, 61.6127778
"Plastmass" plant location: 55.1266667, 61.5741667
From 2019:
"Today, JSC 'Plastmass Plant' is a major enterprise in the city of Kopeysk. The company is practically the only operating manufacturer in the country of ammunition for field and tank weapons, as well as unguided air-to-air missiles of the S5 and S8 types. It also possesses technologies for the refurbishment of ammunition for practical purposes, as well as technologies for the disposal of ammunition with expired service life. The products manufactured by the plant are of strategic importance, constitute the main firepower of modern artillery and attack aircraft, and ensure national security and defense...
Перейти на оригинальный пост
🔥2
Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (Twitter)
/2. First casualty reports by Russian officials say four workers were killed in an explosion on the territory of military plant in Kopeysk, near Chelyabinsk
/2. First casualty reports by Russian officials say four workers were killed in an explosion on the territory of military plant in Kopeysk, near Chelyabinsk
🔥2👏2
Ukraine Battle Map (Twitter)
@Speranskylives @Maks_NAFO_FELLA: This is incorrect; the Storm Shadow cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
@Speranskylives @Maks_NAFO_FELLA: This is incorrect; the Storm Shadow cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
Ukraine Battle Map (Twitter)
@sentdefender: The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
@sentdefender: The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
Ukraine Battle Map (Twitter)
@ricescott128 @Maks_NAFO_FELLA: The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
@ricescott128 @Maks_NAFO_FELLA: The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
Necro Mancer (Twitter)
Прапорщик пограничной службы Цибиров Хетаг Майрамович 1997 г.р. утром 06/08/24, как последний лох, не сдался в плен, а мог бы уже давно по обмену дома чай пить (или что там они у себя в РСО употребляют)
www.tg-me.com/sevosetia/40236 #фсб #груз200
Прапорщик пограничной службы Цибиров Хетаг Майрамович 1997 г.р. утром 06/08/24, как последний лох, не сдался в плен, а мог бы уже давно по обмену дома чай пить (или что там они у себя в РСО употребляют)
www.tg-me.com/sevosetia/40236 #фсб #груз200
🔥2🐳1
Ukraine Battle Map (Twitter)
@alexrtsx @Maks_NAFO_FELLA: Storm Shadow is a missile that is entirely a European system. It does not require US targeting data to be used. The missile uses TERPROM, British terrain contour mapping, an Inertial Navigation System, and GPS. None of those fall under US restrictions. The US can give satellite imagery to help aid in a strike, but the UK and France can also use their own satellite imagery and plan their own routes that the missile will take.
The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
@alexrtsx @Maks_NAFO_FELLA: Storm Shadow is a missile that is entirely a European system. It does not require US targeting data to be used. The missile uses TERPROM, British terrain contour mapping, an Inertial Navigation System, and GPS. None of those fall under US restrictions. The US can give satellite imagery to help aid in a strike, but the UK and France can also use their own satellite imagery and plan their own routes that the missile will take.
The Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles transferred to Ukraine are ITAR-free. Additionally, ITAR only controls the export; once a country exports a weapons system that falls under ITAR, it is no longer subject to ITAR control. The US has no say over how it is used or where it is fired. That’s beyond the scope of ITAR.
Furthermore, the missiles being transferred to Egypt were early production models; the US was blocking their export to Egypt because they contained one US part that fell under the ITAR. Once that part was changed, France could then transfer them without US authorization and without obtaining a re-export license.
When the UK and France transferred Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG to Ukraine in 2023, if they had fallen under ITAR, they would have had to do so under a US re-export license; however, they didn't. They did it under their own export procedures. The decision was made unilaterally by France and the UK, and they did not receive an export license or US authorization to transfer those cruise missiles, which would have required a process and would have been needed if the missiles had parts that fell under ITAR.
The only reason why Ukraine wasn’t allowed to fire Storm Shadows and SCALP-EG deep into Russia under the Trump and Biden administrations was that the US may have seen it as going against their stance and stopped sending weapons to Ukraine, or it would’ve had an impact on relations between the UK/France, and the US. There is no legal basis for these restrictions; it is purely diplomatic.
❤1
Colby Badhwar 🇨🇦🇬🇧 (Twitter)
RT @John_A_Ridge: Ukraine's strike campaign against Russia will no longer be under the thumb of Bridge Colby. An unqualified win here https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1981076834230968393#m
RT @John_A_Ridge: Ukraine's strike campaign against Russia will no longer be under the thumb of Bridge Colby. An unqualified win here https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1981076834230968393#m
👍2🥰1
Rob Lee (Twitter)
RT @kaitlancollins: News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
RT @kaitlancollins: News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
🙏1