Putin waves nuclear sword in confrontation with the West

[tribrac]

Let us die young or let us live forever
We don't have the power, but never say never.
Hoping for the best but expecting the worst
Are they gonna drop the bomb, or not?

[Lexew1899]

Likely US targets with projected fallout radius. Most of the population would be dead within 30 days.

[Ontario]

It has been a long time since the threat of nuclear weapons has been brandished by a world leader, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has just done so.

He warned that he has the weapons available if anyone dares to use military means tries to stop the takeover of Ukraine. The threat may have been empty, a mere baring of fangs by the Russian leader.

But it brought out thoughts of a nightmare scenario in which Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine could lead to a nuclear war through accident or miscalculation.

[creator]

Are nukes even real?

Bro Jones, as a physicist, have you ever taken a serious look at whether nukes are even real? There are some groups out there who are seriously questioning it. I personally don't have an answer. I've never seen one used, only heard stories about them.

I certainly don't trust the government and much of science, due to how much they use lies and false propaganda, false flags, etc.

[JK4Woods]

Using fear to keep us in line....

We regular citizens are not supposed to be able to understand how things work with Russia and geo-global politics.

This whole thing is a side show. Someone wants this to happen.

I have suspicions they are trying to have Russia be "distracted" so we can invade Iran without worrying about them. Of course, the Russians would be in on this, but I don't think the Iranian government is part of the NWO yet.

Yep, definitely a magic trick, (look over here while my other hand is pulling something else entirely off...

Besides, Putin just got the pipeline going forward, -a clear strangle hold on Europe.

Why engage in a ground fight?

Maybe to season up his troops?

Maybe to clobber the Great Reset crowd...
(Putin is not a fan of one world order, or one currency. And Ukraine factors in a big way with corrupt power).

Maybe his domestic popularity is waning, and one way to get your citizens behind you, is a united front in war...


So far I have seen some burned out trucks, a few tanks, and a photo op with the Ukraine president dressed in flak vest wearing a helmet in a drainage ditch (notice all the weeds frowning in it?), with the story line that he is “visiting the front”.

Such BS. The optics are all over the place.

Back in the day, US Newsmen would go out on patrol and photograph scads of dead enemy, dead and wounded civilians, and fighting troop and and wounded soldiers all the time.

Other than MSM, it’s awfully hard to get non-processed video from other sources.

So far, I’ve see long convoys pulled over, no weight on the springs, lots of empty trailers, and after being strafed, only one or two actually burned out.

Where are all the troops..?? They ran away..??!?

Optics... doesn’t add up...

[JK4Woods]

The "first use" of nuclear weapons has been the adopted NATO position for 60 years. This is why NATO were not particularly concerned that the Warsaw Pact had more military personnel, more tanks, more planes, more guns etc. In any incursion into western Europe by the Soviets the plan was to call Moscow and tell them we were going to nuke them if they didn't stop. If they didn't immediately cease we would nuke a remote military target somewhere deep in the Soviet Union to demonstrate that we were both serious and determined. It was hoped this would bring them to their senses.
It always struck me as being a little risky.

Yes, but tactical nukes are an entirely different animal. Low yield, limited damage, and way less radiation than Chernobyl afflicted on Ukraine back in the day.

Tactical Nukes are a force multiplier, and throws opposing leadership into disarray.

Then there are neutron bombs that kill people by high amounts of temporary radiation that dissipates, and leaves buildings and infrastructure still standing.

MADD scenario is not even a consideration.... although, with feeble US leadership, a first strike on US soil would probably be unresponded too...

Meaning, “the football”, wouldn’t be used, because Sleepy Joe would have to wait for Barry to tell him to call it in and strike back, but it wouldn’t happen within the fifteen minutes the ICBMs are in flight...

And with the woke weasels at the pentagon these days, unlikely the subs would be authorized to launch ...

Well, the Last Days are supposed to be horrific...

[Lexew1899]

I’ve seen a lot of dead troops. A few weird pictures of animal abuse also. Just depends on what websites you go to. If you go to anything mainstream, it’s probably something fake, sanitized, made by crisis actors, or stock photos from a few years ago.

[TheDuke]

Nukes are real. Take any class to understand, any kid could make one if he had the material, making them small and safe, that is a bit trickier. I have seen them and trained to drop them. Oddly enough even when I trained to protect Korea, many years ago, the NK folks talked about using chemical weapons. They are nasty, and we put in place training, but really, like COVID masks, chem suits are only good for one use. So, I asked our 3 star how we would possibly fight (China, NK & Russia) if they used chem weapons, as we could make at the most 2 flights. He sort of chuckled and explained we would respond in a way that would require one attack mission and the second one home, then they'd clean the planes somewhere else. In other words we would respond to any unconventional attack with tactical nukes. As said further up, no one ever talks about tactical nukes any more. We seem to only focus on ICBMs and IRBMs and cruise missiles. But, you can even fire tactical nukes out of a cannon.

Lets be clear, even if Ukraine was in Nato, what does that mean? NATO never attacks anyone, unprovoked, Russia has nothing to fear and that is some long-term way out case. This is a Russian land and power grab, plain and simple. Like Napolean, Ceasar, Hitler, etc... It is about building an empire vs. a country and being an emperor vs. a president. This is nothing new, seems it goes back to Nimrod, and to my knowledge there has never not been an empire or super-power if you will that hasn't attacked everyone around them since shortly after the flood and people overcame the language issue.

Of interest on how things change. There is a park, up on a hill behind my home. It is on a nicely groomed trail. You get to the top and you can see Bellevue, Seattle, and Puget Sound. There is an old Nike circa missile complex. Long torn down and made safe. But, in the 50's they had a ring of liquid fueled, nuclear tips missiles sitting all around the pacific NW waiting for USSR invasion. They were managed by enlisted folks and didn't even have officers on site. There were no fancy keys to launch and the darned things weren't even safe as they kept loading and unloading them with corrosive liquid O2 s it kept evaporating away. Funny how now it takes top brass in a sub or the President to launch nukes today. But then........... and The fence around the complex was only chain link with serpentine wire!

Also, an older friend (father of my fiance at the time as USAF Colonel) talked of flying F106 (and F102) delta darts. They were NORAD supersonic interceptors, and carried genie missiles to shoot down Soviet bombers (Bears and Bisons), the missiles were also nuclear tipped as they were not as accurate as todays digital models. So, rank-and-file USAF NORAD pilots (Lt, Capt, Major, etc..) would routinely take off and fly across US and Canada on alerts carrying nukes with a simple red safety switch. By the time I trained on nukes, we needed codes and had to have ground and air personnel put in keys and such but not in the old days.

So, freewheeling nukes aren't anything new, maybe to the millennials but not to the older folks. However, its the mechanical stuff that is the issue today, you know. Mechanical, like the "nut behind the wheel" or man-in-the-loop.

[spiritMan]

Lets be clear, even if Ukraine was in Nato, what does that mean? NATO never attacks anyone, unprovoked, Russia has nothing to fear and that is some long-term way out case.

Russia has nothing to fear?

Has the last 30 years not taught anyone anything. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.

Of course Russia has plenty to fear, US military equipment on it's doorstep. Why in heaven's name can no one actually just use a few brain cells, look at it from the other guys perspective, realize he ain't crazy and take just a few steps to avoid WW3.

But no instead we've got this @#$.

https://twitter.com/ChiefMI6/status/1497287654441984007

"With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So let’s resume our series of tweets to mark #LGBTHM2022"

I'm not saying Putin is an angel, but if you are so positive that the US and the West is correct with this level of stupidity coming from the Chief of MI6 at this time right now, my goodness we will have WW3.

[Sarah]

Lets be clear, even if Ukraine was in Nato, what does that mean? NATO never attacks anyone, unprovoked, Russia has nothing to fear and that is some long-term way out case.

Russia has nothing to fear?

Has the last 30 years not taught anyone anything. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.

Of course Russia has plenty to fear, US military equipment on it's doorstep. Why in heaven's name can no one actually just use a few brain cells, look at it from the other guys perspective, realize he ain't crazy and take just a few steps to avoid WW3.

But no instead we've got this @#$.

https://twitter.com/ChiefMI6/status/1497287654441984007

"With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So let’s resume our series of tweets to mark #LGBTHM2022"

I'm not saying Putin is an angel, but if you are so positive that the US and the West is correct with this level of stupidity coming from the Chief of MI6 at this time right now, my goodness we will have WW3.

What has Putin learned from Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria? He's learned that he can manipulate western Presidents to do his dirty work, and then they will leave and allow him to walk in and do whatever he wants.

[Niemand]

There is one thing that has been missed in this equation... cyberwarfare. The Kremlin website was hacked, Russian radio stations have reportedly started playing Ukrainian music and parts of the Russian internet were taken down. It takes skilled people to do that and it could be a foreshadowing of a later global event.

[Lexew1899]

CIA LARPing as Anonymous. Plausible deniability. Everyone saw the reports the other day that Biden was offered a menu of ways to conduct cyber warfare on Russia. And it miraculously happens the next day.

[The Red Pill]

For those that are taking the MSM, that has LIED to the world for two straight years about covid, at face value on Ukrainian issues...I offer some much needed perspective.

https://www.larouchepac.com/biden_and_h ... arouchepac

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/did-nato-j ... on-russia/

[NeveR]

WRONG. The US instigated a coup in 2014 and installed a US puppet.

I was in Ukraine not too long ago, in the middle of Kiev. We were looking for a good restaurant and saw one called "The Barricade"-it celebrated the 2014 revolution. My wife asked a RANDOM stranger, hey is that a good restaurant.

The response, "bah, it's full of propaganda".

What was "WRONG" in what I said?
What I said is factually correct, irrespective of what restaurant you wanted to eat at.

The "coup" you refer to is the overthrow of a government who were trying to take the country into closer alignment with Russia against the will of the majority of the people. A policy said government didn't mention during the previous election campaign. The people felt they were deliberately deceived.
I'm not saying the reaction of the West was appropriate, but I am saying there is absolutely no love lost between Ukraine and Russia, except for the ethnic Russians in the east of the Ukraine.

That is not historically accurate.

Ukraine had long-standing trade deals with Russia which were very favorable to Ukraine and helped keep it solvent. In 2013 the president of Ukr at the time, Yanukovych, was trying to negotiate a parallel deal with the EU. But the EU insisted on unfavorable conditions that effectively excluded the existing deals with Russia. Russia and Ukraine worked out a compromise solution - which the EU rejected.

And so the "spontaneous" US/EU backed "protests" began. Inspired NOT by Yanukovych moving closer to Russia but by him trying to maintain existing trade deals with them.

I recommend watching Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire" documentary to get a more factual perspective. Also this sourced timeline of events leading to the coup of 2014 -

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/tim ... ne-crisis/

[Niemand]

CIA LARPing as Anonymous. Plausible deniability. Everyone saw the reports the other day that Biden was offered a menu of ways to conduct cyber warfare on Russia. And it miraculously happens the next day.

Funny how it's supposed to be the Russians hacking everyone.

[OCDMOM]

3 Things every Christian should know.
Ukraine is one of the Most Christian Nations in Europe.
200,000 Jews still live in Ukraine.
Putin believes Ukraine is Russia's sovereign territory.
https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/article-698210

LDS living in Ukraine as of 2019 11,242.

[Robin Hood]

WRONG. The US instigated a coup in 2014 and installed a US puppet.

I was in Ukraine not too long ago, in the middle of Kiev. We were looking for a good restaurant and saw one called "The Barricade"-it celebrated the 2014 revolution. My wife asked a RANDOM stranger, hey is that a good restaurant.

The response, "bah, it's full of propaganda".

What was "WRONG" in what I said?
What I said is factually correct, irrespective of what restaurant you wanted to eat at.

The "coup" you refer to is the overthrow of a government who were trying to take the country into closer alignment with Russia against the will of the majority of the people. A policy said government didn't mention during the previous election campaign. The people felt they were deliberately deceived.
I'm not saying the reaction of the West was appropriate, but I am saying there is absolutely no love lost between Ukraine and Russia, except for the ethnic Russians in the east of the Ukraine.

That is not historically accurate.

Ukraine had long-standing trade deals with Russia which were very favorable to Ukraine and helped keep it solvent. In 2013 the president of Ukr at the time, Yanukovych, was trying to negotiate a parallel deal with the EU. But the EU insisted on unfavorable conditions that effectively excluded the existing deals with Russia. Russia and Ukraine worked out a compromise solution - which the EU rejected.

And so the "spontaneous" US/EU backed "protests" began. Inspired NOT by Yanukovych moving closer to Russia but by him trying to maintain existing trade deals with them.

I recommend watching Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire" documentary to get a more factual perspective. Also this sourced timeline of events leading to the coup of 2014 -

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/tim ... ne-crisis/

You really think there was a coup over a trade deal? Seriously?

The EU is a trading block. Member states cannot negotiate any bilateral trade deals; it's against the rules. In the event of Ukraine joining the EU, the only way for those trade deals with Russia to have continued is if the deal was between Russia and the EU. If that was the case then every EU state would have access to the deal and not just Ukraine.
This has been the case for every country which has joined the EU, and is one of the reasons the United Kingdom left the EU.

Ukraine were stuck between a rock and a hard place, they wanted their cake and to eat it. They couldn't do what Russia wanted them to do. They had to make a choice - retreat from Russua or retreat from Europe. The president, under intense pressure from Moscow chose Russia, the people disagreed because they saw their chance for independence and throwing off Russian shackles disappearing.
The trade deal was an example or symptom of a much larger problem/question.

[BuriedTartaria]

It sounds like Russia and Ukraine are meeting to talk peace.

[NeveR]

WRONG. The US instigated a coup in 2014 and installed a US puppet.

I was in Ukraine not too long ago, in the middle of Kiev. We were looking for a good restaurant and saw one called "The Barricade"-it celebrated the 2014 revolution. My wife asked a RANDOM stranger, hey is that a good restaurant.

The response, "bah, it's full of propaganda".

What was "WRONG" in what I said?
What I said is factually correct, irrespective of what restaurant you wanted to eat at.

The "coup" you refer to is the overthrow of a government who were trying to take the country into closer alignment with Russia against the will of the majority of the people. A policy said government didn't mention during the previous election campaign. The people felt they were deliberately deceived.
I'm not saying the reaction of the West was appropriate, but I am saying there is absolutely no love lost between Ukraine and Russia, except for the ethnic Russians in the east of the Ukraine.

That is not historically accurate.

Ukraine had long-standing trade deals with Russia which were very favorable to Ukraine and helped keep it solvent. In 2013 the president of Ukr at the time, Yanukovych, was trying to negotiate a parallel deal with the EU. But the EU insisted on unfavorable conditions that effectively excluded the existing deals with Russia. Russia and Ukraine worked out a compromise solution - which the EU rejected.

And so the "spontaneous" US/EU backed "protests" began. Inspired NOT by Yanukovych moving closer to Russia but by him trying to maintain existing trade deals with them.

I recommend watching Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire" documentary to get a more factual perspective. Also this sourced timeline of events leading to the coup of 2014 -

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/tim ... ne-crisis/

You really think there was a coup over a trade deal? Seriously?

The EU is a trading block. Member states cannot negotiate any bilateral trade deals; it's against the rules. In the event of Ukraine joining the EU, the only way for those trade deals with Russia to have continued is if the deal was between Russia and the EU. If that was the case then every EU state would have access to the deal and not just Ukraine.
This has been the case for every country which has joined the EU, and is one of the reasons the United Kingdom left the EU.

Ukraine were stuck between a rock and a hard place, they wanted their cake and to eat it. They couldn't do what Russia wanted them to do. They had to make a choice - retreat from Russua or retreat from Europe. The president, under intense pressure from Moscow chose Russia, the people disagreed because they saw their chance for independence and throwing off Russian shackles disappearing.
The trade deal was an example or symptom of a much larger problem/question.

This is quite arrogant of you. You don't need my word, just read and watch the sources I provided. They are crystal clear and my summation is entirely accurate.

You also are uninformed about the nature of Ukraine as a country. The Catholic majority in western Ukraine were indeed pro-EU and have a long history of animosity toward Russia. However the Russian Orthodox majority in eastern Ukraine always favored close ties with Russia.

This is the crux of the problem. It's really two nations in one state. You can't sweep these facts away just to make a neat narrative.

US/NATO and the EU chose to exploit the divergences in Ukraine to weaken Russia. They fomented several coups - the latest in 2014 - and ended up financing an extreme neo-Nazi regime that proceeded to wage an eight-year genocidal war on the ethnic Russian population.

You can't understand the current situation out there without fully grasping all of this.

I strongly suggest everyone watches Oliver Stone's doc and looks at the timeline I posted a link to.

The past doesn't justify Russia's current action, but it sure helps explain it and puts it in a proper perspective.

[ammodotcom]

Man. This is insane. I suppose we’ve always known things will eventually get this way even if this is not the moment

Most people assume WWIII is inevitable, but few have the prescience to guess how.

[Robin Hood]

What was "WRONG" in what I said?
What I said is factually correct, irrespective of what restaurant you wanted to eat at.

The "coup" you refer to is the overthrow of a government who were trying to take the country into closer alignment with Russia against the will of the majority of the people. A policy said government didn't mention during the previous election campaign. The people felt they were deliberately deceived.
I'm not saying the reaction of the West was appropriate, but I am saying there is absolutely no love lost between Ukraine and Russia, except for the ethnic Russians in the east of the Ukraine.

That is not historically accurate.

Ukraine had long-standing trade deals with Russia which were very favorable to Ukraine and helped keep it solvent. In 2013 the president of Ukr at the time, Yanukovych, was trying to negotiate a parallel deal with the EU. But the EU insisted on unfavorable conditions that effectively excluded the existing deals with Russia. Russia and Ukraine worked out a compromise solution - which the EU rejected.

And so the "spontaneous" US/EU backed "protests" began. Inspired NOT by Yanukovych moving closer to Russia but by him trying to maintain existing trade deals with them.

I recommend watching Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire" documentary to get a more factual perspective. Also this sourced timeline of events leading to the coup of 2014 -

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/tim ... ne-crisis/

You really think there was a coup over a trade deal? Seriously?

The EU is a trading block. Member states cannot negotiate any bilateral trade deals; it's against the rules. In the event of Ukraine joining the EU, the only way for those trade deals with Russia to have continued is if the deal was between Russia and the EU. If that was the case then every EU state would have access to the deal and not just Ukraine.
This has been the case for every country which has joined the EU, and is one of the reasons the United Kingdom left the EU.

Ukraine were stuck between a rock and a hard place, they wanted their cake and to eat it. They couldn't do what Russia wanted them to do. They had to make a choice - retreat from Russua or retreat from Europe. The president, under intense pressure from Moscow chose Russia, the people disagreed because they saw their chance for independence and throwing off Russian shackles disappearing.
The trade deal was an example or symptom of a much larger problem/question.

This is quite arrogant of you. You don't need my word, just read and watch the sources I provided. They are crystal clear and my summation is entirely accurate.

You also are uninformed about the nature of Ukraine as a country. The Catholic majority in western Ukraine were indeed pro-EU and have a long history of animosity toward Russia. However the Russian Orthodox majority in eastern Ukraine always favored close ties with Russia.

This is the crux of the problem. It's really two nations in one state. You can't sweep these facts away just to make a neat narrative.

US/NATO and the EU chose to exploit the divergences in Ukraine to weaken Russia. They fomented several coups - the latest in 2014 - and ended up financing an extreme neo-Nazi regime that proceeded to wage an eight-year genocidal war on the ethnic Russian population.

You can't understand the current situation out there without fully grasping all of this.

I strongly suggest everyone watches Oliver Stone's doc and looks at the timeline I posted a link to.

The past doesn't justify Russia's current action, but it sure helps explain it and puts it in a proper perspective.

You are right about two states in one country. Those Orthodox in the east are not really regarded as Ukrainians at all by the rest of the country. They are ethnic Russians and they speak Russian as their first language.
The "real" Ukrainians object to the voting power of a group whose first allegiance is to another state.
They have a point.

As for your description of me, you need to realise that you're not the repository of all wisdom and neither is the Guardian; and it's ok for people to disagree with you.

[TheDuke]

NeveR: Funny how some of us have lived through this and others have only notes of what happened when they were babies and know they know what really happened and those of us that lived through it were on drugs or deceived or something? I've been around the Russia/USSAR rodeo all my adult life, since entering the USAF during college. I've seen all sides of the arguments, I've worked deep classified secrets of their capabilities, etc..... True there is much propaganda on our side, but if you're honest and open there is always truth beneath it. Not sure why your sources are better than the other, when none of us even try to quote MSM?

[tmac]

Always more to the equation than meets the eye -- even for us children of the Cold War like Duke and me. My parents built a new home in that era that included a full-scale fallout shelter. At this point it is harder than ever to know who to trust and what to believe.

But I do have a question. I know Ukraine has wanted to join NATO, but what have I missed about a corresponding desire to join the EU?

[NeveR]

That is not historically accurate.

Ukraine had long-standing trade deals with Russia which were very favorable to Ukraine and helped keep it solvent. In 2013 the president of Ukr at the time, Yanukovych, was trying to negotiate a parallel deal with the EU. But the EU insisted on unfavorable conditions that effectively excluded the existing deals with Russia. Russia and Ukraine worked out a compromise solution - which the EU rejected.

And so the "spontaneous" US/EU backed "protests" began. Inspired NOT by Yanukovych moving closer to Russia but by him trying to maintain existing trade deals with them.

I recommend watching Oliver Stone's "Ukraine on Fire" documentary to get a more factual perspective. Also this sourced timeline of events leading to the coup of 2014 -

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/tim ... ne-crisis/

You really think there was a coup over a trade deal? Seriously?

The EU is a trading block. Member states cannot negotiate any bilateral trade deals; it's against the rules. In the event of Ukraine joining the EU, the only way for those trade deals with Russia to have continued is if the deal was between Russia and the EU. If that was the case then every EU state would have access to the deal and not just Ukraine.
This has been the case for every country which has joined the EU, and is one of the reasons the United Kingdom left the EU.

Ukraine were stuck between a rock and a hard place, they wanted their cake and to eat it. They couldn't do what Russia wanted them to do. They had to make a choice - retreat from Russua or retreat from Europe. The president, under intense pressure from Moscow chose Russia, the people disagreed because they saw their chance for independence and throwing off Russian shackles disappearing.
The trade deal was an example or symptom of a much larger problem/question.

This is quite arrogant of you. You don't need my word, just read and watch the sources I provided. They are crystal clear and my summation is entirely accurate.

You also are uninformed about the nature of Ukraine as a country. The Catholic majority in western Ukraine were indeed pro-EU and have a long history of animosity toward Russia. However the Russian Orthodox majority in eastern Ukraine always favored close ties with Russia.

This is the crux of the problem. It's really two nations in one state. You can't sweep these facts away just to make a neat narrative.

US/NATO and the EU chose to exploit the divergences in Ukraine to weaken Russia. They fomented several coups - the latest in 2014 - and ended up financing an extreme neo-Nazi regime that proceeded to wage an eight-year genocidal war on the ethnic Russian population.

You can't understand the current situation out there without fully grasping all of this.

I strongly suggest everyone watches Oliver Stone's doc and looks at the timeline I posted a link to.

The past doesn't justify Russia's current action, but it sure helps explain it and puts it in a proper perspective.

You are right about two states in one country. Those Orthodox in the east are not really regarded as Ukrainians at all by the rest of the country. They are ethnic Russians and they speak Russian as their first language.
The "real" Ukrainians object to the voting power of a group whose first allegiance is to another state.
They have a point.

As for your description of me, you need to realise that you're not the repository of all wisdom and neither is the Guardian; and it's ok for people to disagree with you.

I'm not claiming any wisdom, that's why I'm linking to an outside source of information. Off-Guardian isn't the Guardian, it's an alt news blog. I have been reading it regularly lately as it's brilliant on COVID. The timeline is fully sourced. Every alleged fact has a link.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, but documented facts need to be respected. And the facts surrounding the 2014 coup are very well documented.

[Lexew1899]