Russia has already lost territory in Ukraine they’ve held for years, and are about to (according to Wagner) abandon the front lines including Bakhmut on Wednesday because they have no ammo.
The Ukrainian counter assault hasn’t even started.
Crimea has been under attack, and Russia itself. The war has created the homeland danger it was supposed to be eliminating, but also destroyed Russia’s ability to defend itself! Lol.
It has also decimated an entire generation of Russian men and their economy, neither of which are likely to rebound.

Russia may not only lose all of Ukraine and Crimea, but also some of Russia proper. They will definitely lose international standing and a huge portion of gdp.

They have lost the war already….badly…and have absolutely zero chance of winning on the battlefield now that Ukraine has next gen weapons and training….they couldn’t win against non military citizens with bolt action rifles, how will they beat a well trained hardened military with M1 Abrams tanks, long range advanced mobile howitzers, anti tank/air missiles, 10000 well trained drone pilots, advanced air defenses, and the backing of NATO and the West?

I would absolutely support a >100 mile deep DMZ in Russia under Ukrainian and NATO control, and severe limitations on the Russian military limiting it to only defensive weapons and a minimal army. They will be lucky to get a deal that good if things continue.

The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.

For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.

Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.

In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio,……

Very nice, but I would tone down the glow on the cockpit controls, otherwise it looks like J.J. Abrams doing Star Wars.

Also in 2018: Stacey Abrams, down by 3% with 99% of votes counted. "Count all the votes."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a8uoKHxdxs

"Mark Hamill on the latest Star Wars films."

He really isn't speaking specifically about the latest Star Wars films. This is one of many videos of interviews with Mark Hamill in which people try and take things out of context and make it sound like he is trashing the new films. He is not. This video is from 2016 and is posted by an account named "Jar Jar Abrams", if you were looking for any clue as to the intent of this person. I don't know when the interview was initially filmed, but it would be helpful to know when, relative to the release of The Force Awakens.

He is pointing out that Hollywood judges the success of movies only by the money they make, hence Transformers. He notes that companies, such as Disney, buying up other movie companies, should be cause for concern. How will Disney judge success of The Force Awakens? Probably on revenue, since TFA did about $2 billion. Does that make it a success or a good movie? That is actually the point he is making, that pure revenue doesn't judge success. I think his point is more that Star Wars makes a shit-ton of money, Transformers makes a shit-ton of money, but does that make Transformers a better/more successful franchise than Star Wars?

Rotten Tomatoes has most Transformers movies at sub-50%. Are they a failure? The last 2 Star Wars movies are sitting at 90+% on Rotten Tomatoes. Does that mean they are a success? I found TFA to be a fun, nostalgic Star Wars film, but it wasn't The Best Evar. I have seen TLJ twice in the last week. I think it is fantastic, almost as good as Empire, but it still has its problems.

The user review on Rotten Tomatoes for TLJ is 54%. Does this mean the movie is a failure? Or are user reviews just the internet rage machine, concentrated? I am done with aggregated/collected game and movie reviews on the internet. Too much hate, too much agenda-ranting. Nowadays, I have found some game and movie reviewers that seem to see games and movies like I do. I read their reviews and then judge for myself.

Be critical of the things you love.

I'm going to have a really big problem with this show if it's in the JJ Abrams style with lens-flare and characters constantly running from scene to scene to instill a sense of urgency, descending into mindless fast-and-the-furious action as the series progresses.

The main character (the one from Walking Dead) is a solid choice, which was necessary in a show that had such strong female leads as Jeri Ryan and the incredible Kate Mulgrew.

Just like the JJ Abrams Star Trek.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Graduate of the JJ Abrams school of dramatic lens flares.

Cool enough, though not sure I'm sold on this over Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator... this basically is that, but having VR requirement and set in a Star Trek universe (from the comments it appears to be the JJ Abrams universe). I'm not one to be upset about it being Ubisoft.

Pulsar: Lost Colony is another one in the same thing, though it seems to be a bit more ambitious in total scope, though missing the VR requirement. It has away missions. It's the one I'd be more interested in playing... were I to have enough friends to play any of these. lol.

The problem with JJ Abram's Star Trek is that he destroyed the core of Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek IS the optimistic, utopian future of mankind.

The popularity of themes comes and goes with the hopes and fears of the current culture. But if zombies are in and vampires are out at the moment, you don't try to make a vampire movie where vampires act like zombies. Just make a fucking zombie movie!

So maybe Roddenberry's core theme is not popular at the moment. If audiences want to see a future of betrayal, violence and individualist motivations in their plot, then pick a franchise that represents those themes and have at it. Remake "Forbidden Planet" any way you like. Shit, do "Logan's Run" in space with a shit ton of CGI.

Or get out ahead of the curve. Old testament angels in an anachronistic setting is just WAITING for a good director to come along.

JJ Abrams had the following to say about this video:
"I love it! It just needs a little more lens flare and it would be perfect!"

Did J.J. Abrams direct this?

I've seen it twice now--once on opening night in IMAX with co-workers and the next day with my daughter and wife in 2D at the local theatre. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone to see it again if the local theatre hadn't of gifted me with discounted tickets (around $12 US for me and the wife and $9 for the daughter).

I was deeply disappointed with the film, though I would not go so far as to say it sucks like @kulpims did. If I had to sum it up in two phrases, I'd say "tries too hard to be clever" in homages to the original films and "deeply flawed" in terms of story. It's not a terrible film by any means, but I would say its unevenness makes it good yet far from great.

It's better and worse than the prequels at the same time. Acting and pacing are far better than the prequels (but not nearly as good as the originals as has been pointed out by @ChaosEngine already).

At the same time, say what you want about Lucas's prequels but he at least tried to expand the Star Wars universe and show us new sides and aspects of it--to make it really feel like a galaxy rather than a couple of mostly uninhabited worlds like Tatooine and Hoth that we got to see in the original trilogy. This movie is a step backwards from that and played things waaaaaay too safe (partly because, as I mentioned, they were too busy trying to make themselves look clever with references to the originals and lots of "nod, nod, wink, wink, see what I did there" moments).

But it is JJ Abrams and I shouldn't have really been as shocked as I was to find out how much of the movie was copy/pasted from the originals with twists that I'm sure he thought were clever but which I just found as cringe-worthy.

Still, really loved the new characters. The daughter was definitely enthralled by Rey, but surprisingly likes her better as dune-surfing scavenger than planet-hopping adventurer.

No, nothing about this was cool. It reproduced everything that was BAD about sci fi action movies.

The obscene amounts of light flicker, despite the fact that POWER SYSTEMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY, would make JJ Abrams blush.

So obviously the story will be about Leia.

Because JJ Abrams.