Since you don’t understand what an implication is
I understand what an implication is.
I don’t understand how you don’t get it
I do get what you’re trying to say.
Can I suggest expressing what you’re trying to communicate explicitly, using prose.
“It’s unlikely Trump would try to please Putin”
Those words aren’t present in the article.
intentionally attacking civilian targets
Uhh… there’s nothing in the article to suggest they intentionally attacked civilian targets, at least from my reading.
the surgery scars did not heal well
Source?
UAV’s have been critical in fighting as the underdog against a much larger force.
There’s no way for us here to know whether that’s because of or in spite of this man.
Why they surrendered in groups, not laying down their lives like their peers at Kursk Bulge?
Indeed, why? Excellent question. Keep asking, you may gain some insight, Mr. Sladkov.
I think you’ve confused what “male gaze” refers to:
Brutal :-)
Probably not. They’re just dumping energy into the electromagnetic spectrum, it’s not something you can counter really. The only thing you can do is change the frequency band you use to move away from where they’re dumping, which in many cases might not even be possible (the frequency band determines range, bandwidth, etc.)
Indeed.
If it’s Android with Google apps, it isn’t your phone.
especially if someone on lemmy is WRONG, and you need to thumb a reply!
🤣
Eh?
is experimental
tl;dr
The “guy” is a Russian expert and former CIA on the … Russia desk.
Assuming that’s true then he’s a Russian expert and former CIA [officer?] on the Russia desk who’s written an article full of non sequiturs, supposition and just plain nonsense. He’s a Russian expert and former CIA officer on the Russia desk who’s a deluded fool.
But you probably have no clue what that actually means, do you?!
It means the embarassment from having written this article is even greater?
LOL