On the threat of new shelling. Let's examine this from a military perspective.

I would generally recommend viewing all these current events from a military perspective.

There seem to be numerous signals to Trump and the management of ICBMs, without drawing the attention of the sanitizers.

They raised the strategists (strategic bombers, — ed.) beforehand and simulated a ballistic strike to observe our reactions — emitting radar signals, flipping switches, moving to backup positions for air defense systems, and deploying drones with cameras.

Then they struck at the energy sector as best they could, accumulating for almost two months for a salvo of their product.

If they could have used some experimental missile, even one with three warheads like "Iskander," they would have done so, similar to what they did with "Zircons" back in the day.

However, amidst a salvo of a hundred to a hundred and fifty missiles, and a hundred and fifty "Shaheds," that would have been a negligible tonnage.

Our air defense survived as a unified organism, not fragmented, not suppressed, and not blinded by interference like Yugoslavia was at the time. And now, the air defense systems are not predominantly Western, which means the same goes for missiles, radars, and communications.

Therefore, they will strike with whatever they can when they have accumulated enough, and that’s the end of the speculation on ICBMs.

Red lines are continually being pushed back — Kherson region, Chongar bridges, Crimea, Kursk, and even the Russians themselves do not know where they lie.

Meanwhile, we will be intercepting these attacks, and they will fall, hit and destroyed by kinetic means, misses, electronic warfare — we just need to respond to alarms when missiles are in the air, and that’s all there is to it.

After more than 3600 days of war, they threaten us on social media with a single missile. They have exhausted everything they could, but the stone flower does not bloom.