825
‘We’re done’: Ukraine resumes strikes on Russian oil refineries as anger at Trump mounts
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
825 points (99.3% liked)
News
39794 readers
2995 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wtf is with this shit expecting Ukraine to treat Russia with kid gloves? They were invaded. As far as I'm concerned they could glass Moscow and I wouldn't give a shit. If we want Russia to be able to deliver oil we should be pressuring them to GTFO of Ukraine so Ukraine has no reason to defend themselves.
Why even entertain any other resolution?
Because Trump expects some kind of deal out of Ukraine and Russia, that will lead to a new age of prosperity, and in turn, his immortality as a president forever remembered for making America great again. Or Putin has the pee tapes, featuring underage girls, as recorded by Jeffrey Epstein, on Saint Little James.
I know why Trump's doing it. Why everyone else though? This conflict is talked about as of it were a two way street when it was an aggressive act on the part of Russia.
maga is literally grifters of americans united inc. they're all grifting as much as they can and trump is their literal face on the camera.
Many people were full into the idea of the USSR, and still are angry that it dissolved. They see Russia as a legitimate successor and lick up their narrative.
And then there are people who don't like Russia or war, but who are also skeptical about their own leadership in the US and NATO states. Both siders.
The Russian narrative has a good chance with these as well.
And then there's young people who have not experienced much history themselves and are in need of orientation.
nobody tell .ml
moscow and st petersburg shouldve been hit from the start to be honest, its where putin base of power is.
Because Trump has unresolved daddy issues, and for whatever reason he wants Putin to acknowledge him.
Strategically, glassing a city wouldn't solve anything. That just makes the people who are left want to fight harder.
Infrastructure and decapitation strikes are more effective at getting populations to stop fighting, especially when that infrastructure includes the propaganda machine.
I wasn't speaking in terms of strategy. My point was outside observers expecting a nation that's defending themselves to hold back in any way is absurd.
I agree. It's very pipedream, I know, but I want innocent Russians to be safe. I want their people to stop being thrown away by a vile madman, and their brains to stop being scrambled by bullshit State news.
I want Russians and Ukranians both to stop dying.
If pooty would direct himself to the nearest open highrise window, I'm sure he would inadvertently save countless lives, since simply stopping doesn't seem to be on the table.
Isn't there quite a lot of infrastructure and leadership in Moscow?
Yes, but surgical strikes that leave the population alive are more effective.
Bomb the people into submission was a plan cooked up after the first world war, and was pretty stupid then as well.
The firebombing of Germany, Japan, the UK, etc. didn't make the population less willing to fight, quite the opposite, but the defeat of a countries military, did in fact make the populations surrender.
Populations will put up with a lot when under constant attack, when their loved ones are dying in the street, but when they're merely inconvenienced, and then their team loses, well, that breaks moral.
Also, decapitation works wonders, take out the leaders who are pushing for more war, and suddenly there's no push for more war.
Yes... But there was a notable exception with Japan. And I'm not saying obliteration is strategically better than targeted strikes achieving the same in terms of military targets.
IIRC Japan had already internally agreed to surrender, the nuclear strikes were as much for USSR's benefit (ie to scare them) as they were for finalising the war.
I'll have to go back and check but my recollection is the Japanese positions shifted from
(position for months when the tide turned and the allies approached) "defend the home islands to the last child you can strap a bomb to" (literally, the plan included unwilling suicide bombers not just kamikaze) - kill as many million Allied troops as can be done by any means possible (including civilians attacking).
(A couple of days before the nukes) "Oh hell the USSR is going to get here first and that is worse than the western allies quick overturn the govt and supply surrender terms that aren't terrible to the americans" (I'm fuzzy on exactly who possibly the rest of cabinet)
Americans ignore surrender offer in order to cowe USSR as well as Japan, forcing an unconditional surrender rather than the managed surrender that Japan offered, and prove the nukes really worked. (The first bomb is somewhat ethically defensible, the second quite honestly isnt from my perspective)
If anyone is a historical guru feel free to correct, it's been years since I read it.
Key differences to the "general" story in the west is that Japan offered surrender before the nukes were dropped, and the allied command who ordered the bombing DID know. Attempts have been made to justify it as "they didn't know that japan was willing to surrender - it was a comms gap". The desire to intimidate the USSR was also not released until decades later
Edit to add "western" in front of allies in point 2 - USSR were indeed our allies at that point, although there was a plan, and serious consideration to do so, to keep rolling East from Berlin after Germany surrendered
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important strategic targets. Hiroshima was a heavily industrialized factory city as well as a major logistics and supply hub. Nagasaki was...an industrialized city producing war materials with a major port and was a major shipping hub.
Both bombs served specific strategic purposes in destroying the Japanese war effort. It wasn't just "let go blow up some japs lol".
True, but it was something of a balancing act between multiple motivations. The USA talked up the strategic importance of the targets, but they also wanted to create a psychological impact.
st petersberg to.