Russia invades Ukraine

[Cloud Strife]

They'll probably resort to making Kyiv "Grozny II", if they have enough artillery weapons left to do that.

That's what I expect to happen. Using a nuclear weapon in an offensive war would almost certainly cause severe anxiety among the other nuclear nations, including potentially raising the stakes so high as to simply bankrupt Russia until they agree to decommission all their nuclear weapons.

If they are struggling to get supplies to the forces that are already there, would it help to add more?

No. This is often described as one of the problems with the invasion - Ukraine is just too big and too populous to control with military forces, especially when the resistance is being fuelled with Western weapons that the Russians have apparently no answer for. More troops means more supplies, which means more convoys that are sitting ducks. The one outside Kyiv is being permitted to stay, but you have to wonder how they're coping with supplies in this situation. With the weather about to turn very cold in/around Kyiv, they might be in even more trouble than before.

The most significant loss for Russia is exposing its military for the world to see on television in a full scale war and seeing the grotesque mistakes they are making. Horribly unprofessional and it has weakened Russia's hard power as well as eviscerating any soft power it had.

I can completely agree with this. At the start of the invasion, I gave Kyiv two weeks. It's now two weeks, and Russia is nowhere near capturing Kyiv. It's not the powerful monolith that we thought it was, it's a joke of an military that has had to resort to killing civilians and destroying residential areas to even gain control of them. There's absolutely nothing to be frightened of anymore, and I suspect the people in the Baltic States have been reassured by the utter failure of this policy. It also means that the mooted scenarios, such as the seizure of the Suwałki Gap, are quite unrealistic.

I just cannot see how Russia can win this war now. Kyiv will not surrender, and the only thing that seems to be left to the Russians is widespread genocide. But even genocide will require considerable resources, and if it starts happening, then they'll also have to contend with Ukrainians who will stop at nothing to destroy Russian forces. It's also worth pointing out that Ukraine hasn't even mobilised the general population yet, and there are reports on Polish Facebook groups that Western Ukraine has started to remove some checkpoints and barricades.

 

[XAM2175]

If it's 20% of all Russia's active forces, then the remaining 80% is going to at the very least include the navy (which is of limited direct use, and in the case of the Northern and Pacific fleets is also very far away), no?

 

[brad465]

Disgraceful doesn't cut this:

Ukraine war: Three dead as maternity hospital hit by Russian air strike

Three people including a child were killed in the attack on the city of Mariupol, officials say.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russian forces surrounding the southern port city of Mariupol have destroyed a maternity hospital, Ukraine says.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said children were under the wreckage, and called on Western leaders to impose a no-fly zone.
He also posted footage apparently from inside the hospital, which appears badly damaged.
There is no information yet on casualties, or on who was inside the hospital at the time.
The Mariupol city council said the strike had caused "colossal damage", and published footage showing burned out buildings, destroyed cars and a huge crater outside the hospital. The BBC has verified the location of the videos.
Mariupol has been surrounded by Russian forces for several days, and repeated attempts at a ceasefire to allow civilians to leave have broken down.
"The whole city remains without electricity, water, food, whatever and people are dying because of dehydration," Olena Stokoz of Ukraine's Red Cross told the BBC, adding that her organisation would continue trying to organise an evacuation corridor.
Earlier Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said "almost 3,000 newborn babies lack medicine and food" in Mariupol, and that Russia continued to hold more than 400,000 people "hostage".
Russia insists that it does not target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

Humanitarian convoys​

Meanwhile, convoys of civilians are due to leave several towns near the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, according to regional leader Oleksiy Kuleba.
Ukraine's armed forces agreed to stop firing on Wednesday along six evacuation routes for 12 hours, from 09:00 to 21:00 local time (07:00 to 19:00 GMT).
They urged Russian forces to fulfil their commitment to the local ceasefires, but Russian shelling has continued with further reports of civilian deaths.

 

[Cloud Strife]

That is entirely in line with Russian military doctrine. They're trying to force Mariupol to surrender by destroying the civilian population, at which point, they might consider ending the war as the corridor to Crimea will be complete.

It's completely disgusting and shows that they can't win the war by defeating the Ukrainian forces.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Ukraine Crisis: Nicola Sturgeon suggests Nato should not rule out no-fly zone over Ukraine​

Nicola Sturgeon has suggested Nato should keep an open mind about enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.​

In an interview with ITV Border, the First Minister said she “shares concerns” that this could lead to a direct military confrontation between Nato and Russia.
However, she said Vladimir Putin is not acting in “any way rationally or defensively”.
Asked specifically about a no-fly zone, Ms Sturgeon said: "I think the West has to keep its mind open to every way in which Ukraine can be helped so I think getting whatever military support and military equipment that Ukraine needs has to be a priority and I would hope that we would see a solution found.”
She added: "I understand and share the concerns about a direct military confrontation between Russian and Nato that a no-fly zone may lead to.

Nicola Sturgeon suggests Nato should not rule out no-fly zone over Ukraine

Nicola Sturgeon has suggested Nato should keep an open mind about enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

www.scotsman.com

Thank heavens she isn't running the country, or does she not realise Scotland would be bombed in said WW3?

Former first minister Alex Salmond condemned her comments, accusing her of “contemplating direct armed conflict between nuclear powers”.
The ex-SNP leader said: “Scottish opinion is united in condemning the illegal invasion of Ukraine, working to restore the peace and offering a generous hand of friendship to refugees, fleeing this disastrous conflict.
"But in every international conflict for the last 60 years, the national movement in Scotland has stood for de-escalation and peace, not escalation and Armageddon.
"Thus ‘keeping an open mind’ on enforcing a no-fly zone is contemplating direct armed conflict between nuclear powers. Nicola should reflect.”

Alex Salmond shot it down though.

 

[Yew]

If it's 20% of all Russia's active forces, then the remaining 80% is going to at the very least include the navy (which is of limited direct use, and in the case of the Northern and Pacific fleets is also very far away), no?

I wish them luck trying to get into the Baltic or Black seas; either would involve going through the territorial waters of NATO Nations.

 

[JamesT]

I wish them luck trying to get into the Baltic or Black seas; either would involve going through the territorial waters of NATO Nations.

There is a Russian Black Sea Fleet based at Sevastopol in Crimea. Although limited in size, it’s probably sufficient if they wanted to cut off Ukraine’s sea links.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Thank heavens she isn't running the country, or does she not realise Scotland would be bombed in said WW3?

She has a limited grip on reality, so what were you expecting?

 

[Simon11]

Disgraceful doesn't cut this:

Ukraine war: Three dead as maternity hospital hit by Russian air strike

Three people including a child were killed in the attack on the city of Mariupol, officials say.

www.bbc.co.uk

Totally agree with you that it is disgraceful, however this incident happened 19 years ago and as ‘the West’ we are definitely not innocent either.

Baghdad hospital bombed

· US forces '19 miles from capital' · Saddam defiant in TV statement · UK 'will not attack Iran and Syria'

www.theguardian.com

Simon Jeffery and agencies
Wed 2 Apr 2003 14.14 BST

US aircraft hit a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad, the city's trade fair, and other civilian buildings today, killing several people and wounding at least 25, hospital sources and a Reuters witness said.
The attacks occurred at 9.30am (0630 BST) and caught motorists by surprise as they ventured out during a lull in the bombing. At least five cars were crushed and their drivers burned to death inside, Reuters correspondent Samia Nakhoul said.


While Russia is definitely in the wrong over this war and is preventing truthful reporting, I do see some minor imbalance in the way the west is reporting this war. For example, Russian Army and Ukraine citizens deaths are being highlighted, however little mention of Ukraine army deaths. Ukraine is of course holding back on this information for propaganda reasons but Western media should try to cover death figures for all parties.

 

[brad465]

It appears some of our soldiers have gone to Ukraine against orders:

Absent UK soldiers may have travelled to Ukraine, British Army says

The Army says it's "actively and strongly encouraging" the soldiers to return to the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

A small number of British soldiers have disobeyed orders and may have travelled to Ukraine to fight, the British Army has confirmed.

The soldiers were absent without leave and may have gone to Ukraine "in a personal capacity", the Army said.

"We are actively and strongly encouraging them to return to the UK," a spokesperson added.

All service personnel are banned from travelling to Ukraine until further notice.

We just have to hope this doesn't escalate things internationally.

 

[Shrop]

Nicola Sturgeon suggests Nato should not rule out no-fly zone over Ukraine

Nicola Sturgeon has suggested Nato should keep an open mind about enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

www.scotsman.com

Thank heavens she isn't running the country, or does she not realise Scotland would be bombed in said WW3?



Alex Salmond shot it down though.

Okay, so Nicola Sturgeon has said things which some condemn for risking an escalation to WW3. That may be fair enough, but just how much do we stand by and do wholly ineffective things such as Boris saying "Putin will be accountable for war crimes"? Comments such as that stand no chance whatsoever of making the slightest difference to Putin, and meanwhile the disaster in the Ukraine continues, and escalates.
"The West" stood by watching for many weeks while a huge army gathered on the Ukraine border, and did nothing that made any difference to Putin, so he invaded, quite possibly just to see how the West would respond. The response was to introduce sanctions, which will hit the Russian economy at some point, but nothing like enough to worry Putin. So he invaded further while promising not to hit civilian targets. We now know how that turned out, and still the West did nothing meaningful, for fear of starting WW3. Then he promised to provide civilian escape routes, but in practice his army used them for target practice.
Next we hear that he's shut down power to Chernobyl, which we know risks losing the capacity to prevent it overheating, and thus creating a huge nuclear problem. Some say this is under control, but what next, what of the other nuclear facilities in Ukraine? And what about the bombing of a hospital? His stealthy increase of upping the level of disgusting behaviour is a well calculated risk on his part, to do just enough to achieve his objectives, without The West reacting.
So the bigger question, suppose he was to step up another level still, and drop a nuclear bomb on Kiev. Would we still say we don't want to get too involved in case it leads to WW3? Would we still be satisfied with our stance of Ukraine not being in NATO, and saying "Ah, but he will be accountable for war crimes", and perhaps bringing forward a few more economic sanctions? Could we still stand by if he used a nuclear bomb or two to wipe out a few hundred thousand civilians in one go, so long as it wasn't on a NATO country?

 

[DelayRepay]

It appears some of our soldiers have gone to Ukraine against orders:

We just have to hope this doesn't escalate things internationally.

Meanwhile the Guardian are reporting that

The capability needs strengthening,” Wallace said. "So in response to Ukrainian requests, the government has taken a decision to explore the donation of Starstreak high-velocity man-portable anti-air missiles."

He acknowledged Ukrainian soldiers would need to be trained in how to use the missiles. "How we are doing it is sensitive."

Plausible deniability?

 

[oldman]

After insisting no conscripts were used, it's confession time in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Just a few, of course, and definitely not the boss's fault:

Russian President Vladimir Putin was informed that his instruction to categorically exclude the use of conscripts to perform tasks in Ukraine had been fulfilled. However, several violations were committed at the beginning of the operation, said the press secretary ...

"On Putin's instructions, materials were sent to the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office for a legal assessment of the actions and punishment of officials who are involved in the failure to comply with this instruction," Peskov added.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2022 ==

Also from Komsomolskaya Pravda:

On the night of March 9, 2022, Ukrainian nationalists brought about 80 tons of ammonia to the village of Zolochiv northwest of Kharkov. According to the citizens who left Zolochiv, the nationalists teach them how to act correctly in a situation of a chemical attack. All this indicates that Ukrainian nationalists are preparing a provocation using poisonous substances in order to accuse Russia of allegedly using chemical weapons.

They often accuse the other side of provocations to mask their own actions, e.g. the attack on the power station at Enerhodar was a provocation. The fact that they are telling their own people about the possible use of chemical weapons is disturbing.

 

[Annetts key]

So, could one of you please tell me what the difference is between someone being killed by conventional weapons and a nuclear weapon (be it a battlefield warhead or an ICBM)?

I would say that we are already in WWIII, given that a large number of countries are using various sanctions against Russia and some are supplying various weapons systems to Ukraine. How is it not a worldwide event?

Far better to threaten Russia with military action (and if needed, take action) sooner rather than waiting for even larger numbers of civilians to be killed, maimed and injured.

Putin now knows that a large number of the countries of the world condemn his actions. So if the ‘west’ make it very clear that we have had enough, and make it very clear that we WILL back up our threat with action, it is very possible that he may back down. Do you really think he would now really want to take on Western military forces, given how badly his little “two to three day” special military operation is going?

This is the only way to quickly end this war. We must bully the bully.

 

[dakta]

one difference could be it's very difficult to kill someone with a nuclear device

but a hundred someones or so, with fallout across a few hundred or thousand miles depending on environmentals to make people indiscriminately sick is a bit easier

Not reallying arguing against your opinion because I think we've made a mistake by hard and fast ruling out any intervention we've given vital info away, but hey ho here we are we'll have to wear it

 

[Peterthegreat]

So, could one of you please tell me what the difference is between someone being killed by conventional weapons and a nuclear weapon (be it a battlefield warhead or an ICBM)?

I would say that we are already in WWIII, given that a large number of countries are using various sanctions against Russia and some are supplying various weapons systems to Ukraine. How is it not a worldwide event?

Far better to threaten Russia with military action (and if needed, take action) sooner rather than waiting for even larger numbers of civilians to be killed, maimed and injured.

Putin now knows that a large number of the countries of the world condemn his actions. So if the ‘west’ make it very clear that we have had enough, and make it very clear that we WILL back up our threat with action, it is very possible that he may back down. Do you really think he would now really want to take on Western military forces, given how badly his little “two to three day” special military operation is going?

This is the only way to quickly end this war. We must bully the bully.

It is also very possible he won't back down. Do you want to see the earth reduced to a nuclear waste site?

 

[Cloud Strife]

It is also very possible he won't back down. Do you want to see the earth reduced to a nuclear waste site?

Putin might not, but the military and the wealthy people in Russia will want to avoid losing everything. If you're a wealthy person with children, are you going to give that up just for the sake of Putin's ambitions?

Having said that, one possible option would be to put a huge NATO presence on the Belarusian border. It would terrify Lukashenko, who is undoubtedly well aware that the Belarusian Army has no chance in war.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

People in the USA don't know how fortunate they are with their low fuel prices. Biden and other Americans seem to think it's great to ban Russian oil imports, even though only 3% (or thereabouts) comes from Russia. Gosh, how meaningful. They have NEVER paid as much as £1.00 per litre of petrol, and they have a tendency to think the world is ending when their fuel prices rise. So please forgive me if I think that this particular sanction isn't exactly risking hardship for US citizens!

Indeed an with US goading the EU to follow suite they will be one of the main beneficiaries as they've invested heavily in build LNG infrastructure.

 

[LowLevel]

It is also very possible he won't back down. Do you want to see the earth reduced to a nuclear waste site?

To be honest if we can't get our **** together and prevent despots from wreaking havoc every now and then once and for all perhaps the total destruction of the human race is a desirable outcome.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is the only way to quickly end this war. We must bully the bully.

Will you be going and fighting or are you expecting other people to do it?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

US rejects moving Polish Mig29's to Ukraine

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pe...mig-29-planes-to-ukraine-calls-move-high-risk

The Pentagon announced that it will not support a proposal from NATO-ally Poland to send MiG-29 planes to the Ukrainian military, referring to the move as "high-risk" for escalating tensions with Russia.

 

[Annetts key]

Will you be going and fighting or are you expecting other people to do it?

Yeah, alright, so would you expect someone who even when they were younger could not pass a military fitness test to fight?

I wanted to go into the RAF, but soon realised that I had no chance. That did not stop me from studying war, warfare, military hardware, and the people involved in the military. Plus the political people who were the ones often causing the problems due to them having delusions of power or greatness or going after resources such as minerals. Regardless, often the thing that is common with aggressors, is that they don’t care about killing people as long as they get their way.

By not only telling Putin that we will not attack Russian forces, and then by demonstrating that we will not attack Russian forces, we are, in effect telling him to carry on. And as the Russian military resorts to flattening towns and cities, because their forces can’t actually take the towns and cities (mostly) intact, Putin will be emboldened even more.

So if we (the West) were to change tack, it would come as a huge shock to Putin. It would force him to reconsider. He would then have to consider how safe he would be in Russia. And how safe Russia would be from its other enemies.

Russia will have sent most of its best military (army and airforce) to fight in Ukraine. Leaving mother Russia with the ordinary military to defend the homeland. So he will definitely not want to risk loosing power due to no longer being able to maintain power in Russia.

The nuclear threat keeps getting mentioned. But as I have said earlier, I think it’s very unlikely that he will use it. He does not want to loose power or die. Why else has he maintained such large distances during COVID19 (especially so considering Russia allegedly has it under control). And it’s possible that he does not want his family to die. And he does not have direct control of the nuclear weapon systems anyway. It would be the chain of command that would pass the order along. Do you think they want to die? Do you think they want their family to die?

And keep in mind that the top level of this command chain will have access to both Russian military information sources and access to Western media. So they know what’s going on as well as anyone.

Also, if Putin was really ready to use nuclear weapons, why would he have spent so much money trying to modernise the Russian navy? You don’t build new warships if your plan is to use nuclear weapons when threatened…

 

[dgl]

I think the problem we have with Putin is that he seems to be compleatly bonkers so any threat that might cause any normal leader to reconsider their actions won't work.

 

[DustyBin]

So, could one of you please tell me what the difference is between someone being killed by conventional weapons and a nuclear weapon (be it a battlefield warhead or an ICBM)?

Very little for the individual(s) involved; they’re dead. The difference is that in the case of the latter, the number of dead individuals may well number several million. Surely you can see the issue there?

I would say that we are already in WWIII, given that a large number of countries are using various sanctions against Russia and some are supplying various weapons systems to Ukraine. How is it not a worldwide event?

A worldwide event is one thing, WW3 would be quite another. Two countries are at war and we’re trying to prevent it escalating any further. As awful as it is, this is a regional conflict born out of a fairly catastrophic miscalculation by Putin’s regime. Nobody wanted this, not even Putin as far as I can tell.

Far better to threaten Russia with military action (and if needed, take action) sooner rather than waiting for even larger numbers of civilians to be killed, maimed and injured.

It’s not “far better” at all; you’re rolling the dice with this approach and hoping for the best. It may work, it may not, and if it doesn’t we really are in trouble.

Putin now knows that a large number of the countries of the world condemn his actions. So if the ‘west’ make it very clear that we have had enough, and make it very clear that we WILL back up our threat with action, it is very possible that he may back down. Do you really think he would now really want to take on Western military forces, given how badly his little “two to three day” special military operation is going?

Again, it’s a huge and very dangerous gamble. He knows we’re serious when it comes to NATO commitments but that doesn’t apply here. In his mind we’d be interfering in his own back yard at which point anything could happen. Where does your confidence that he’d back down come from incidentally?

This is the only way to quickly end this war. We must bully the bully.

Or actually turn it into WW3 of course….

 

[Annetts key]

you’re rolling the dice with this approach and hoping for the best. It may work, it may not, and if it doesn’t we really are in trouble.

Any decision when it comes to conflict is a gamble anyway. In every war, every leader of the relevant countries make decisions and gamble. Previously we gambled that Putin was just sabre-rattling and would not invade Ukraine. Boy, that turned out to be wrong. Our governments have been wrong many times before when it comes to conflict. For the U.K., one of biggest in recent history was the Falkland Islands. We gambled that Argentina would never seriously threaten the islands. Boy we got that wrong. The military junta in Argentina saw our decreasing presence along with their own internal problems as a reason to think that taking the islands would be a quick and simple victory. And that that would distract from the problems at home. They gambled that the U.K. would not try to retake the islands. They got that wrong.

He knows we’re serious when it comes to NATO commitments but that doesn’t apply here. In his mind we’d be interfering in his own back yard at which point anything could happen. Where does your confidence that he’d back down come from incidentally?

I really don’t think it matters if he considers Ukraine to be ‘his back yard’. It would be different if his offensive had gone well and he had taken Ukraine easily. But that’s not the case.

No one knows for certain what he will do. But I think that self preservation will mean that he will back down. Of course he will spin it in the Russian media.

People keep saying or indicating that they think Putin is mad. I disagree. He almost certainly is a psychopath, but I don’t think he’s mad. You don’t survive and get to be the leader of Russia if you are mad.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the problem we have with Putin is that he seems to be compleatly bonkers so any threat that might cause any normal leader to reconsider their actions won't work.

He's clearly made a huge miscalculation in Ukraine, over-estimating the capabilities of his forces and under-estimating the determination of the Ukrainians. That miscalculation seems fairly easy to explain if you consider that, in an autocratic state with the ruler surrounded by yes-men, the ruler is probably mainly being told the things he wants to hear rather than the actual facts. He's also proven on multiple occasions that he is quite happy to see his forces commit atrocities in pursuit of his political objectives. But I don't see any reason to believe he is 'bonkers'.

 

[adc82140]

There is nothing he has done so far that he hasn't done before, either in Syria or Chechnya. So I don't subscribe to the bonkers theory either. He is evil, not mad. He thinks the rules don't apply to Russia, whether that's not bombing hospitals at one extreme, to not doping athletes at the other.

 

[DustyBin]

Any decision when it comes to conflict is a gamble anyway. In every war, every leader of the relevant countries make decisions and gamble. Previously we gambled that Putin was just sabre-rattling and would not invade Ukraine. Boy, that turned out to be wrong. Our governments have been wrong many times before when it comes to conflict. For the U.K., one of biggest in recent history was the Falkland Islands. We gambled that Argentina would never seriously threaten the islands. Boy we got that wrong. The military junta in Argentina saw our decreasing presence along with their own internal problems as a reason to think that taking the islands would be a quick and simple victory. And that that would distract from the problems at home. They gambled that the U.K. would not try to retake the islands. They got that wrong.

I understand your point, but the stakes are somewhat higher here. In the case of the Falklands conflict there was little chance of it escalating beyond fighting on the islands themselves (even if we did remind the Argentinians that we had long range strategic bombers). A NATO-Russia war would be a different situation altogether, and whilst nothing is certain, I feel we really would be tossing a coin in regard to how it would escalate.

I really don’t think it matters if he considers Ukraine to be ‘his back yard’. It would be different if his offensive had gone well and he had taken Ukraine easily. But that’s not the case.

It does matter as he may well feel Russia itself is under direct threat. He appears to be paranoid when it comes to NATO “aggression”.

No one knows for certain what he will do. But I think that self preservation will mean that he will back down. Of course he will spin it in the Russian media.

He can’t spin being booted out of Ukraine by NATO and would have nothing to lose at that point. There’s a lot of truth in the “golden bridge” theory.

People keep saying or indicating that they think Putin is mad. I disagree. He almost certainly is a psychopath, but I don’t think he’s mad. You don’t survive and get to be the leader of Russia if you are mad.

I with you here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2022 ==

There is nothing he has done so far that he hasn't done before, either in Syria or Chechnya. So I don't subscribe to the bonkers theory either. He is evil, not mad. He thinks the rules don't apply to Russia, whether that's not bombing hospitals at one extreme, to not doping athletes at the other.

Agreed, only this time he’s come unstuck which makes him unpredictable.

 

[DarloRich]

Roman Abramovich & others sanctioned by the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60690362

Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the UK government as part of its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
He is one of seven oligarchs to be hit with fresh sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans.
The list also includes billionaires Igor Sechin and Oleg Deripaska, both seen as allies of Vladimir Putin.

 

[Gloster]

As the sanctions on Abramovich place a great deal of restrictions on Chelsea FC, including no selling of tickets for matches or new transfer/loan deals, I foresee a great deal of back-pedalling by the government and exceptions being made. It is football and so everything must bow down before it.

More importantly, it appears that there are only a further seven oligarchs being sanctioned. The speed (or lack of it) at which the government is coming down on them has given them plenty of time to shift their assets. Imposing the sanctions bit by bit allows the government to send out a series of press release about how tough they are. (“If you are ready, Mr Oligarch.”) It should distract attention from other matters, such as questions about how tough they are being on Ukrainian refugees.