#sputnik trailers

[mensministry]

Tenir Eco Hotels, Almaty, Kazakhstan,

Tenir Eco Hotels is a modular glamping located 3200 meters (10’500 ft) above sea level, which makes it one of the highest altitude hotels in the world.

Levelstudio,

Photographer: Miras Ibraimov

[hometoursandotherstuff]

This is a completely restored 1960 mid-century modern Spartan Carousel trailer in Fairview, North Carolina that is listed on Ebay & Craigslist, to name two. It sleeps 2 and has to ship to your property. $210K.

Isn't this a lovely living room? This particular model wasn't made for the American market, so it's rare.

Look at this cool kitchen. The original table, chairs and stools are included.

The appliances match the style beautifully.

How cool is this? A classic sputnik light over the kitchen. Note how it's secured so that it doesn't move when the trailer's in motion.

It's pretty big for a trailer.

The bedroom is beautiful with a built-in dresser.

This is neat, a lighted counter and mirror.

The bathroom has a great pink tub w/shower and a full-size sink w/ vanity.

Love this.

[moistvonlipwig]

Tagged by the incomparable @occidentaltourist.

Last song: Lately I've been listening to Sputnik Spyglass's cover of Love Like You on repeat. It's SO good. Such an original take on an already-great song.

Currently watching: I recently started watching Adventure Time. :o It's fun!

Three ships: Oughh it's hard to pick just three! Right now the ones I'm rotating in my mind the most are probably: Jimmy/Kim from Better Call Saul; Elphaba/Glinda from Wicked (the movie trailer reactivated me like a sleeper agent and I've been re-reading my old friend @ridiculousmavis's iconic fanfics for them like a duck possessed); and my own forever Buffyverse OTP Angel/Cordelia. ;)

Favorite color: You can't deny that black goes well with everything!

Currently consuming: My coworker baked some sort of chocolate creations (? they're like brownies except not? idk. they're good) for Valentine's Day so I'm eating one of those with a bowl of frozen mangoes (my go-to evening snack lol...one thing about me, I am always eating mangoes).

First ship: I have no idea...I first heard about shipping when I was like 8 in the Warrior Cats fandom, but I don't know that I actually had strong opinions about which cats should be with which other cats. In terms of stuff I actually remember seeking out fanfic/fanart for, it was probably either Elphaba/Glinda or the Doctor/Seven of Nine from Star Trek Voyager.

Relationship status: I have 2 furry roommates who do not pay rent. Little freeloaders.

Last movie: ...I think it was The Paper? It was decent.

Currently working on: Brushing up on my higher-level math & physics in preparation to go back to school.

No-pressure tagging @cassphos, @02511213942, @boyvandals, @stephanemiroux, @nocticola, @spikeface, @all-seeing-ifer, and anyone else who wants to do this. :]

[juniperusashei]

His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman - 5/5

It’s hard to articulate why this series is so special to me. I told myself, this time I wouldn’t cry at the end of The Amber Spyglass! And yet, embarrassingly, I found myself in tears clutching my cat (coincidentally named Amber)… The second time around, I can easily say that His Dark Materials is the best fantasy series in existence.

When I was 10 or 11, I was absolutely charmed by the first book, Northern Lights (though I actually think the US title The Golden Compass makes more sense, in light of the objects-as-titles naming scheme) but I never really read beyond it. It wasn’t until my first year of college, one of the hardest periods of my life, that I read the entire series, and it affected me so deeply that I attribute it (along with other books like Murakami’s Sputnik Sweetheart that I was reading at the time and are now my favorites) with affecting the course of my life. I don’t want to get too personal with the details, but it’s very dear to me.

When the 2007 film adaptation dropped, I was sorely disappointed due to the revised ending, so I was very excited for the most recent TV adaptation by HBO. The first season charmed me, but I found the second bloated and mostly filler. Season 3 comes out in just a few days, so even though I think the trailer looks sterile like a Marvel movie, I will surely be watching it. I didn’t want to rewatch the first two seasons though, which is why I reread the first two books instead, and I got so caught up in the narrative that I went ahead and read the third as well. I think it’s an absolute artistic crime that Studio Ghibli was not hired to adapt this series, because it’s the closest literary equivalent to their work — talking animals, a spunky girl protagonist, witches, and lots of flying machines.

So what did I think of the actual book? It’s stereotyped as ‘baby’s first atheism book’ but the philosophical depth is uncommon because it actually managed to make nihilism look like the most optimistic choice (something my Christian friend called the edgiest nihilism). It’s funny to me that only the first book attracted ire from evangelicals, because the first book is largely a metaphor for the Catholic sex abuse scandals, and Pullman doesn’t get into the metaphysical until books 2 and 3. Aside from the philosophical aspects, it’s such an addicting world, one that I feel compelled to come back to time and time again even though none of the supplemental material has been very good.

I was also excited about the new copy I ordered, from Everyman’s Library. I had a ratty old omnibus and wanted something nicer, and the extremely expensive Folio Society editions looked so cheap to me! The Everyman’s binding looks elegant in its minimalist red and black, and most importantly, the book stays open on its own. There’s a sewn-in bookmark as well, and it feels like a very elevated reading experience. At over 1000 pages, the paper they used is thin, translucent “bible paper” which is a potentially unavoidable drawback, and I wished there were illustrations, but overall this is the nicest looking copy I’ve found. It’s an apt time to reread it — my earliest memory of the series is reading it at a family Thanksgiving years ago. All my cousins had ganged up on me for one reason or another, so I, distraught, sought refuge in my grandmother’s room, and read as she protected me. Fitting that one of my favorite books should be associated so strongly with one of my favorite memories.

[xtruss]

How Much Money Has US Sent to Ukraine and Where Has It All Gone?

— May 04, 2023 | Sputnik | Ilya Tsukanov

US and Ukrainian Notes — Sputnik International, © Sputnik/Alexandr Demyanchuk/Go to the mediabank

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a $300 military aid package to Ukraine this week, bringing total US weapons assistance to over $35.7 billion, or about 65% of the $55 billion in arms sent by NATO to date. On top of that are tens of billions of dollars in economic “support” and humanitarian aid. Where has all this money gone?

"Pursuant to a delegation of authority from President Biden, I am authorizing our 37th drawdown of US arms and equipment for Ukraine valued at $300 million," Blinken said a press release Wednesday, vowing that Washington would "continue to stand with our Ukrainian partners."

"Russia could end its war today," Blinken teased, evoking Biden’s remarks in February that the Ukraine crisis – which was caused by decades of NATO expansion, a Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, and a brutal eight-year-long war in Donbass, was somehow President Putin’s "choice," and that he "could end the war with a word." (The secretary of state left out Washington and London’s role in squashing peace talks between Moscow and Kiev last spring, naturally).

What's in the New US Aid Package to Ukraine?

The new package of US arms assistance will include ammo for Ukraine's High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), artillery, howitzer and tank shells, anti-tank weapons and rockets, small arms, trucks, trailers, and spare parts. Blinken did not elaborate on the toll the additional supplies would have on the US' warfighting capability, or the headaches associated with Kiev burning through weapons and ammunition at rates considerably faster than NATO countries' ability to produce it.

How Much Money Total Has the US Spent on Ukraine?

The Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine is already one of the top 10 military entanglements in American history, with no end in sight. In 2022 alone, Congress earmarked more than $112 billion to Ukraine for military, economic, and humanitarian assistance. That's on top of over $2.5 billion in US military aid sent to Kiev between 2014 and 2021, a $1 billion loan in 2014, and over $1.1 billion in economic support between 2017 and 2018, and $2.6 billion in new military aid announced last month.

To date, Ukraine has now cost the US more (in dollars adjusted for inflation) than the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the American Revolution and Revolutionary War, the Mexican-American War, and the War of 1812. The Ukraine crisis is behind only the First and Second World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, whose costs ran into the hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars.

In his opening remarks at a meeting of NATO defense officials last month, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced that Washington alone has contributed over $35 billion in military aid to Ukraine.

On top of that is economic and humanitarian support. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the US earmarked $27.1 billion for so-called financial aid, and $4 billion for humanitarian aid, between January 2022 and February 2023.

Where is the Money Going?

Where is the aid going? Officials have admitted that they "have almost zero" idea what happens to weapons and ammo after they enter the Ukrainian "fog of war." USAID administrator Samantha Power has assured that Washington has found no "evidence that US assistance is being misused or misspent." These assurances are little comfort to US taxpayers amid extensive reporting on arms sent to Ukraine somehow winding up on the black market and in the hands of criminal gangs and militia groups across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

On the economic and humanitarian aid front too, major "hiccups" have been reported, with veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealing last month that the Zelensky government had embezzled $400 million or more on the purchase of diesel fuel in 2022.

Weapons Sent to Ukraine 'Beginning to Filter' to Africa, Nigerian President Says! Weapons shipped from Western countries to Ukraine are “beginning to filter” to the Lake Chad basin region, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari warned this week. "Regrettably, the situation in the Sahel and the raging war in Ukraine serve as major sources of weapons and fighters that bolster the ranks of the terrorists in the region," Buhari told heads of states from neighboring states participating in the Lake Chad Basin Commission on Tuesday in the Nigerian capital of Abuja.

What is Ukraine's National Debt, and Who Does It Owe?

Apparently taking a page out of the US' playbook of racking up massive debts, Kiev has nearly doubled its national debt over the past year, from $57 billion in February 2022 to over $106.2 billion a year later. Another measurement puts total Ukrainian national debt even higher - over $161.94 billion.

At the start of the crisis last year, Ukrainian officials cautiously floated a proposed debt amnesty for Kiev, urging "international financial organizations" to "revise the debt policy and zero out the debts of Ukraine."

The debt reprieve talk was soon squashed, however, with Kiev not only racking up new debts, but being forced to repay old obligations to the International Monetary Fund to the tune of over $2.7 billion, plus $486 million in surcharges – more than spending on education, the environment, and other major programs combined.

Western creditors have taken the opportunity to take advantage of Ukraine's vulnerable position to push forward long-sought reforms which had been resisted even by successive post-2014 coup governments – such as easing land ownership laws to allow oligarchs and foreign financial interests to expand control over the country's highly fertile chernozem (lit. "black soil") agricultural land.

On top of that, President Zelensky has made it abundantly clear that his government is only too happy to accommodate multinational corporations in making a healthy profit while "rebuilding" Ukraine.

"It is obvious that American business can become the locomotive that will once again push forward global economic growth. We have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants of the international financial and investment world as BlackRock, JPMorgan, Golden Sachs [sic], such American brands as StarLink or Westinghouse have already become part of our Ukrainian way…Everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine in all sectors from weapons and defense and defense to construction, from communication to agriculture, from transport to IT, from banks to medicine," Zelensky said at a US Chambers of Commerce meeting in January.

The Ukrainian president did not mention that these "locomotives" don't work for free, and that, whether at home or in foreign countries, their primary goal and legal responsibility is and has always been to making profits for their shareholders.

How Much Money are NATO Countries Giving to Ukraine?

The Pentagon estimates overall Western military aid to Ukraine to amount to $55 billion, while non-US economic and humanitarian aid commitments currently top $60 billion.

Military Industrial Complex and Neo-Cons Getting Rich Off 'Aimless' Proxy War in Ukraine! "The Military-Industrial Complex needed a new war after the conclusion of the Afghanistan debacle, and Ukraine provided it with the perfect opportunity," said Michael Shannon. "The money that is not going to Ukraine is going to domestic defense contractors, domesticated think tanks, various NGOs and the rest of the parasite neocon class that drives foreign entanglements in the US. Without a foreign conflict, someone might begin to question just what it is that the Pentagon does with the billions of dollars it receives," Michael Shannon, a political commentator and Newsmax columnist said. "I think that 'reasoning' is obscene. In exchange for his weapon's testing platform, McCaul and these other idiots have driven Russia into the arms of our greatest international rival, China. This alliance poses a real threat to the US economically and politically," Shannon noted.

Why is the US 'Helping' Ukraine?

Washington and its allies have offered a number of lofty reasons for supporting the Ukraine proxy war, from "defending democracy" to stopping the Kremlin from its supposed drive to create "a new Russian Empire."

But reading between the lines and monitoring the remarks made by officials and Washington think tank experts reveals the true, far more cynical purpose of US policy: "weakening Russia" (according to Austin) and if possible, regime change in Moscow (according to Biden, although the White House has since retracted these remarks).

Former Reagan-era National Security Council operator Oliver North may have put it best in a "quiet part out loud moment" late last year.

"It's money well spent and in my humble opinion this is very much like what Ronald Reagan did back in the 80s," North said in a television interview last November. "[Reagan] believed in supporting freedom fighters. He did it in Latin America, he did it in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique. He did it in Afghanistan. Those people were willing, as the Ukrainian people are, to use their blood and our bullets."

Naturally, Mr. North did not elaborate on the sorts of odious forces his boss was willing to support by funding these "freedom fighters," nor the human toll of US policy ("their blood"), either in Ukraine or around the globe.

[kleinnasredes]

O Primeiro Homem, de Spielberg e Chazelle, é tecnicamente perfeito. Mas o filme é sobre pessoas e sentimentos

O Primeiro Homem (trailer abaixo), filme produzido por Steven Spielberg e dirigido por Damien Chazelle (de La La Land), o que para mim já seria motivo suficiente para ir ao cinema.

É uma biografia do primeiro homem a pisar na lua, o astronauta norte-americano Neil Armstrong, mas também de toda a luta da Nasa para se destacar na corrida espacial. A União Soviética já havia conseguido lançar o primeiro satélite, o Sputnik, colocar o primeiro ser vivo no espaço, a cachorrinha Laika, e enviar o primeiro homem ao espaço, o russo Yuri Gagarin. Por isso os Estados Unidos precisavam desesperadamente de um grande feito, o que demorou anos.

A história se passa ao longo dos sete anos das missões Gemini e Apolo e mostra todos os problemas, acidentes e vitórias antes da missão Apolo 11 finalmente conseguir pousar na lua. O tipo de filme que eu já vou pro cinema sabendo que vou gostar, mas ainda assim me surpreendeu positivamente. Ryan Gosling, sem expressão como sempre, está perfeito no papel do astronauta que só pensa… naquilo! (a lua).

Tem muitas qualidades. A sensação, em primeira pessoa, de estar dentro de uma nave espacial saindo da atmosfera é — suponho — bem realista aqui. Mas à parte toda a tecnologia, o filme se concentra na história — e nos dramas pessoais — de Armstrong, que perdeu uma filha, precisa se reaproximar da esposa e dos filhos e, claro, não está a fim de morrer precocemente.

E ao longo do filme vai vendo cada um de seus companheiros de jornada morrer de forma trágica em equipamentos que eram tudo menos seguros. E, claro, como a história é conhecida, não será spoiler dizer que também emociona a conquista em si, quando finalmente Neil e seus dois companheiros conseguem cruzar a barreira e pousar na lua.

Um porém: um amigo me chama a atenção para uma cena de grande impacto dramático mas que não tem muita lógica: o momento em que Neil deixa a correntinha da filha na lua. Em gravidade zero ela não deveria cair dentro da cratera, como acontece. Mas… tudo pela dramaticidade da coisa, né mesmo? Mesmo assim, bom filme!

[thehornedbasterd]

Creepy Russian scifi horror movie that really is inspired by Alien and The Thing.

Gonna check this out when it comes.

[filmhabits]

Sputnik - Trailer

Starring Oksana Akinshina, Fedor Bondarchuk, & Pyotr Fyodorov

In theaters August 14, 2020 (US - limited)

[don-lichterman]

New Trailers This Week | Week 30 (2020) | Movieclips Trailers

New Trailers This Week | Week 30 (2020) | Movieclips Trailers

Check out the top new trailers released this week that you’ve gotta see! Let us know what you think in the comments below. ► Sign up for a Fandango FanAlert or Buy Movie Tickets: https://www.fandango.com?cmp=MCYT_YouTube_Desc Want to be notified of all the latest movie trailers? Subscribe to the channel and click the bell icon to stay up to date. 00:00 Bill & Ted Face the Music 02:24 Guest…

[beyondsomewhere]

spaces available. desert center, ca. 2018. by eyetwist Via Flickr: mamiya 6MF 75mm f/3.5 + kodak portra 160. lab: the icon, los angeles, ca. scan: epson V750. exif tags: lenstagger.

[gebo4482]

Sputnik - Official Trailer | HD | IFC Midnight

Dir: Egor Abramenko Star: Oksana Akinshina / Fedor Bondarchuk / Pyotr Fyodorov

[youtubevideorelease]

Sputnik Trailer #1 (2020) | Movieclips Trailers | Movieclips Trailers

Sputnik Trailer #1 (2020) | Movieclips Trailers Welcome! The MOVIECLIPS Trailers channel is your destination for hot new trailers the second they drop. The MOVIECLIPS Trailers team is here day and night to make sure all the hottest new movie trailers are available whenever you want them. In addition to hot new trailers, we give you original content like Ultimate Trailers, Instant Trailer Reviews, Monthly Mashups, Awards Show Coverage, and so much more to keep you up-to-date on what's new, and what you should be watching. Sputnik Trailer #1 (2020) | Movieclips Trailers | Movieclips Trailers

[kydistortion35]

[xtruss]

Leaner, Meaner, Costlier: All You Need to Know About the B-21 Raider

— Ilya Tsukanov | Sputnik International | December 3, 2022

The Pentagon unveiled its next-generation strategic stealth bomber on Friday, with the plane, built by defense giant Northrup Grumman, expected to complement America’s existing bomber force, which includes the B-2 Spirit, the B-1B Lancer, and the ancient but dependable B-52 Stratofortress, when it enters service four to five years from now.

The B-21 Raider is shaping up to become the US Air Force’s latest, greatest way of flying around dropping bombs on people.

At a slick unveiling ceremony Friday at its Palmdale, California manufacturing facility, Northrop Grumman and the Defense Department spared no expense, including a Hollywood movie-style trailer, and a rendition of the national anthem accompanied by flyovers of America’s existing lineup of strategic bombers, organized by US Global Strike Command.

“The B-21 Raider ushers in a new era – a bomber like no other, with stealth, advanced weapons systems and an open systems architecture built into every element. This first-ever sixth-generation aircraft pushes the limits of what’s possible, showcasing the dedication and skills of thousands of people working to build a more secure future. This changes everything,” a voiceover in the opening video proclaimed.

Along with Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden, the ceremony was attended by none other than Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin. “The B-21 Raider is the first strategic bomber in more than three decades. It is a testament to America’s enduring advantages, in ingenuity and innovation. And it’s proof of the [DoD’s] long-term commitment to building advanced capabilities that will fortify America’s ability to deter aggression today and into the future,” Austin said.

But slick marketing shtick and appeals to patriotism aside, what’s under the hood of the new machine?

Facts and Details

The bomber is named after the Doolittle Raiders – a group of US airmen who led a daring World War II-era operation to bomb Tokyo on April 18, 1942. The raid would become the first of thousands of US airstrikes on Japan during the war, with these operations leveling over 60 Japanese cities and killing as many as 800,000 people in firebomb attacks, and concluding with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the first and so far only use of nuclear weapons in war) in 1945.

The bomber has an estimated Range of Over 9,650 Km without refueling. That’s less than the old B-52H Stratofortress, which has a range of over 14,080 km, and its subsonic contemporary the B-2 (11,100 km), and the supersonic B-1B (12,000 km), respectively. Still, that’s enough to strike fear into the hearts of America’s adversaries, according to Austin. “It won’t need to be based in theatre. It won’t need logistical support to hold any target at risk,” he said.

According to unofficial estimates, the B-21 will have a Payload of 10-15 Tons, below that of the B-2 (18-23 tons, respectively). Northrop hasn’t detailed what sorts of bombs the new plane can carry within its internal ordnance bays, but if it’s anything like its wedge-shaped predecessor, these could include 230 kg unguided bombs, 910 kg general purpose precision guided munitions, B61 or B83 nuclear bombs, and AGM-154 glide bomb or AGM-158 cruise missile weapons – launched at ranges beyond the ability of enemy air defenses to counter (although the Stratofortress, built nearly 70 years ago now, can theoretically also perform the same mission).

One of the B-21’s top selling features is its Stealth Capabilities. “Fifty years of advances in low-observable technology have gone into this aircraft. And even the most sophisticated air defenses will struggle to detect the B-21 in the sky,” Austin promised. He did not elaborate. Like its predecessor, the aircraft is expected to be virtually invisible to enemy radar thanks to its distinct shape and advanced polymer coatings.

The bomber also features an “Open System Architecture,” which Austin said would make it “highly adaptable,” and allows for the incorporation of “new weapons that haven’t been invented yet.” The bomber is also “multifunctional,” according to the Pentagon chief, designed to “handle anything from gathering intel to battle management to integrating with our allies and partners.”

Coming Soon to the Skies Near You

Flight testing of the B-21 is expected to begin in March 2023, with the bomber set to start entering service with the Air Force in 2026 or 2027, if everything goes according to plan.

The aircraft has a projected price tag of $692 Million Apiece, with the Air Force planning to build at least 100 total. Six are being built today. As with most military projects with limited congressional oversight, prices have a tendency to balloon. The B-2, which was designed in the 1980s and began to enter service in 1997, had a per-aircraft price tag of over $2.13 billion inflation unadjusted dollars. 132 B-2s were planned, but only 21 were ever built thanks to the end of the Cold War and the refocusing of US military budgets on the so-called "War on Terror." The B-2 was only ever used to attack Yugoslav forces in 1999, and in the US wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, with none of these nations having air defenses that would merit the use of such an advanced piece of military hardware. Whether the B-21 will be used for anything different remains to be seen.

If the B-21’s predecessors are anything to go by, it is expected to be a money-grubbing pig of an aircraft to fly and maintain. According to Government Accountability Office data, the B-2 has a per flight hour cost of over $150,700, and requires 60 man-hours of maintenance for every flight hour. The B-1B costs about $173,000 per flight hour, while the B-52H costs $88,354. That means that for Friday’s B-21 unveiling ceremony alone, the Air Force blew at least half a million dollars for the opening flyover.