Sevastopol was out of range for Ukrainian missiles until recently. The Ukrainian army was able to move their launchers 10-20km south only thanks to the gains made during the summer offensive. The recent attacks on Russian targets in Sevastopol/Crimea are probably precisely to draw Russian deployments from the front lines.

From what I read the main purpose of cluster munitions is for offensive maneuvers, so my hope is Russia will be too busy (and unsuccessful) holding their frontlines to make effective use of them.

In my understanding, calling the Ukraine war a NATO proxy war suggests that NATO is seen as an agressor/enabler in this conflict, effectively exploiting Ukraine to further NATO’s agenda. I’m not sure if that’s what the other commenter was implying (cause if so I would disagree with them), but that’s why I’m asking :)

Is it really a proxy war if NATO is reacting to Russian agression, though? Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the term, but I don’t see much evidence that NATO was rooting for this conflict to escalate the way it did.

I feel like people are starting to lose track of the big picture as the war becomes more and more normalized. I imagine the same goes for Ukraine seemingly taking the allies’ support more “for granted” than in the beginning of the war. Obviously, Ukrainians are fighting this war in the interest of the entire western community, so to ask them to be more grateful for western support just seems petty imo.

I am both. It’s best to just roll with it.

Please excuse my ignorance, but who is actually being limited by a maximum 600 tweets per day? It can’t be your average (or even moderately active) Twitter user, right?