MarginOfError

Is it possible to send a text from a landline? No.
Is it possible to use a landline to call a service that will transcribe a message into a text? Yes, but I doubt that is what happened here.
Is it possible to send a text from a computer or computer-like device and make it look like it's sending from a landline? Yes, and in fact it is trivial to do. 
The "from" line you see displayed on your phone is read from metadata in the message. It can be edited to look like anything.
What likely happened is a device owned by someone you know was compromised. A phisher sent a blast out to any number available and chose a number at random to use in the "from" field.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THAT THREAD.
What the phisher is looking for is evidence of an active phone number. A list of "proven active" phone numbers is more valuable than a random list of numbers.
This particular phishing attempt tried to use a familiar photo, which has the potential to ensnare those that dont want to ignore a friend. The pornographic image is intended to provoke outrage, hoping you will reply asking them not to send such content. 
Ignore and delete the messages, or report them as spam. Contact the relative through a different medium to ask if they are ok and recommend they change passwords immediately.
 

More seriously: define "work."  
I think it's fair to assert that "work" does not have to be "employment." 

Capitalism called. They would like to hire you as a lobbyist.

I'll take a stab at this one and I'll be blunt about it.  The two most contributing factors are 1) Georgians have more in common (culturally/ethnically) with Middle Eastern peoples than they do with European peoples, and 2) Georgia is on the wrong side of the Black Sea.  (Chechnya even more so on both counts). It isn't a comfortable truth, but I don't really doubt these are the primary contributors.
The other thing working very well for Ukraine has been the fact that their government has entertainers placed throughout a lot of key parts of the government (I can't locate the article I had read about this, but it was a longer piece in one of the more prestigious news organizations (not cable news)) . Zelensky actually took some heat for this given his anti-corruption platform, but he put a handful of his entertainment industry friends throughout the government. They weren't necessarily running major parts of government, but they were pretty well connected to the goings on.  As a consequence, the government got a lot better at telling a story. This isn't your traditional government, and it's been plagued by a lot of inefficienies and failures, but it comes across as genuine and scrappy, and that wins hearts.
The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine.  There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

I'll take a stab at this one and I'll be blunt about it.  The two most contributing factors are 1) Georgians have more in common (culturally/ethnically) with Middle Eastern peoples than they do with European peoples, and 2) Georgia is on the wrong side of the Black Sea.  (Chechnya even more so on both counts). It isn't a comfortable truth, but I don't really doubt these are the primary contributors.
The other thing working very well for Ukraine has been the fact that their government has entertainers placed throughout a lot of key parts of the government (I can't locate the article I had read about this, but it was a longer piece in one of the more prestigious news organizations (not cable news)) . Zelensky actually took some heat for this given his anti-corruption platform, but he put a handful of his entertainment industry friends throughout the government. They weren't necessarily running major parts of government, but they were pretty well connected to the goings on.  As a consequence, the government got a lot better at telling a story. This isn't your traditional government, and it's been plagued by a lot of inefficienies and failures, but it comes across as genuine and scrappy, and that wins hearts.
The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine.  There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

I'll take a stab at this one and I'll be blunt about it.  The two most contributing factors are 1) Georgians have more in common (culturally/ethnically) with Middle Eastern peoples than they do with European peoples, and 2) Georgia is on the wrong side of the Black Sea.  (Chechnya even more so on both counts). It isn't a comfortable truth, but I don't really doubt these are the primary contributors.
The other thing working very well for Ukraine has been the fact that their government has entertainers placed throughout a lot of key parts of the government (I can't locate the article I had read about this, but it was a longer piece in one of the more prestigious news organizations (not cable news)) . Zelensky actually took some heat for this given his anti-corruption platform, but he put a handful of his entertainment industry friends throughout the government. They weren't necessarily running major parts of government, but they were pretty well connected to the goings on.  As a consequence, the government got a lot better at telling a story. This isn't your traditional government, and it's been plagued by a lot of inefficienies and failures, but it comes across as genuine and scrappy, and that wins hearts.
The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine.  There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it.
I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians.  All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

I can't speak with any authority, but I would guess the countries bordering Ukraine are actually more resistant to direct confrontation than you might think. 
All indications I'm getting from this are that none of this makes any sense.  Russia can't reasonably expect to maintain the territories they've captured so far; the occupying force they would need to take and hold these parts of Ukraine is estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000 troops.  This is not the work of a rational actor. Which means you have a mad man with a personal vendetta and no clear successor sitting on top of a nuclear arsenal. Given the increase in soviet era tactics (amp up the annihilation and try to break the people), I have genuine fears that we're going to see a tactical nuke go off in Kyiv if Putin can't take it. 
The big fear on NATOs end is that a direct intervention accelerates Putin's anger. Poland doesn't want tactical nukes going off in Lviv, Rivne, Lutsk, or Ivano-Frankivsk.
The sickening and heart breaking thing about this is that the best possible outcome is for the Russians to topple Putin on their own*. The massive and rapid increase in sanctions works toward that goal. Regrettably, we have to infuriate them and turn them against their government. Unfortunately, there are no sanctions we can impose that will do this quickly.  The wealthy and middle class in Russia are certainly feeling the affect of sanctions pretty quickly, but the lower class  (which is quite large) won't feel the pinch for weeks. 
What we are witnessing right now is the nightmare scenario of autocracy in the nuclear age.  And, to make a political statement, it speaks to the dire need to eliminate nuclear weapons for the world wide arsenals. 
 
* And lets be honest--when it comes to toppling brutal dictators, the Russians are the pros.

I get where you're coming from. I'm not actually as naive as I come across. Being actively involved in the destruction of chemical weapons, I can assure you that our compliance with the chemical weapons treaty doesn't mean we don't have chemical weapons; it only means we don't have stockpiles. (Off the top of my head, I don't recall what the formal definition of stockpile is).
But we will definitely have some weapons, and we will definitely have chemical agents. The treaties allow retention and development in the interests of staying ahead/abreast of developments elsewhere.
As for compliance, I would anticipate a nuclear disarmament treaty to follow the same model as the Chemical Weapons treaty. We are regularly inspected by OPCW, with inspectors coming from all sorts of places (some of them hostile and very motivated to find us out of compliance). It's been a good system.
All the more reason to get rid of them.
Ultimately, my objection to nuclear weapons is the same as my objection the chemical weapons. They are not intended to destroy military targets; they are intended to kill civilians. In that regard, 4,000 is about 4,000 too many.
for a lot of reasons, I understand that full disarmament is unlikely in my lifetime. But reducing stockpiles to something that doesn't guarantee the extinction of the species would be a good start.

I agree with unilateral disarmament being a death trap. We've done a good job of banning and eliminating chemical weapons (if memory serves, only three countries refused to sign the chemical weapons treaty; North Korea, Iraq, and Syria).  We would need to go through a similar, world wide treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  It's a pipe dream right now, but a worthy goal.
In the meantime, I'd be content if the U.S./NATO, Russia, China, and India maybe reduced their stockpiles to just the number of weapons we need to destroy the world once, rather than knock it out of orbit.
I would find that very interesting indeed.

I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it.
I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians.  All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

I can't speak with any authority, but I would guess the countries bordering Ukraine are actually more resistant to direct confrontation than you might think. 
All indications I'm getting from this are that none of this makes any sense.  Russia can't reasonably expect to maintain the territories they've captured so far; the occupying force they would need to take and hold these parts of Ukraine is estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000 troops.  This is not the work of a rational actor. Which means you have a mad man with a personal vendetta and no clear successor sitting on top of a nuclear arsenal. Given the increase in soviet era tactics (amp up the annihilation and try to break the people), I have genuine fears that we're going to see a tactical nuke go off in Kyiv if Putin can't take it. 
The big fear on NATOs end is that a direct intervention accelerates Putin's anger. Poland doesn't want tactical nukes going off in Lviv, Rivne, Lutsk, or Ivano-Frankivsk.
The sickening and heart breaking thing about this is that the best possible outcome is for the Russians to topple Putin on their own*. The massive and rapid increase in sanctions works toward that goal. Regrettably, we have to infuriate them and turn them against their government. Unfortunately, there are no sanctions we can impose that will do this quickly.  The wealthy and middle class in Russia are certainly feeling the affect of sanctions pretty quickly, but the lower class  (which is quite large) won't feel the pinch for weeks. 
What we are witnessing right now is the nightmare scenario of autocracy in the nuclear age.  And, to make a political statement, it speaks to the dire need to eliminate nuclear weapons for the world wide arsenals. 
 
* And lets be honest--when it comes to toppling brutal dictators, the Russians are the pros.

I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it.
I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians.  All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it.
I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians.  All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

We won't be hearing from JAG anymore...in "unrelated" news, I have JAG's Chicken Kyiv

Capitalism called. They would like to hire you as a lobbyist.

More seriously: define "work."  
I think it's fair to assert that "work" does not have to be "employment." 

Capitalism called. They would like to hire you as a lobbyist.

Kiev is the Russian transliteration. I strongly encourage you use the Ukrainian pronunciation. 
 
It's just Ukraine.  Prepending "the" comes from the Russian custom of speaking of Ukraine as if it is property. 
 
Regarding nuclear threats
I suspect the reasons we are seeing sanctions and arms flow so rapidly at the moment is that there has been a fundamental shift in how the intelligence apparatus is viewing Putin.  Up until this point, I believe he's been viewed as a rational actor; that he's been taking calculated steps toward a goal of weakening NATO and the EU enough to make it possible for the Russian government to expand its sphere of influence further toward restoring the same order that existed at the height of the Soviet Union.  My general impression was that the Russian military hasn't posed a serious military threat (and the last week has confirmed that). Viewing Putin as a rational actor puts all the saber rattling into a frame where it was plausible to think that the goals were buffer zones and access to resources (The Black Sea has a lot of untapped natural gas, and Sevastopol is a valuable asset for the Russian Navy). 
Putin's speech last week justifying the invasion where he effectively declared that Ukraine had no right to exist outside of Russian control popped a few eyes open. We can debate whether or not Putin has been a rational actor previously (it's possible that he has) but that speech was not the speech of a rational actor. This seems personal. If you pivot your interpretive lens to use the irrational actor mode, this gets very scary. If the Ukrainian invasion is irrationally motivated, the amount of resources he is willing to commit to the project increase dramatically. 
The irrational actor lens explains a lot about why Germany changed their tune on SWIFT sanctions so rapidly. The sanctions imposed yesterday cut off access to a lot of the Russian governments financial reserves. While it will hurt the global economy, it is going to devastate and crush the common Russian citizen. Already, the ruble has fallen to its lowest point in history. This creates civil and domestic unrest in Russia, which has already been mounting since the invasion started. 
Putin seems to be executing a personal vendetta* and his grip on power is slipping domestically. If this is true, there isn't much left for him to lose, and he may lash out in very gruesome ways.  These could include massacring protestors in Russia, shelling residential targets in Ukraine, etc. At this point, yes, I am willing to believe that he would order a nuclear strike--although I suspect it's more likely that he strikes Ukraine than it is he strikes Europe or the US, but the probability of those events is still higher than zero.
This sounds frightening. At the same time, I'm not overly concerned**, and I would not panic. Putin might be willing to give the order, but I have great faith that the Russian soldiers responsible for executing the order would balk and refuse. I have faith that those that aren't completely disconnected from the rest of humanity will refuse to allow that level of atrocity to occur.
 
 
* my best guess is that, due to his extreme isolation during COVID and reducing his inner circle to just yes-men, he's become somewhat disconnected from reality. I also believe that he feels cheated because the USSR was dissolved before he was able to rise in power. He wants back what he missed out on, and no one has been willing to tell him that won't ever happen.
** I can't say as much for my kids.  My older child got curious and found that the military installation we live next to is on the list of first round targets. It's been fun trying to explain in age appropriate ways that if a full nuclear attack is launched, we won't survive.

That's just evil. 
I love it.

This irks me.  A lot. I beg you to say no.  
Practice this sentence: "This weekly goal thing isn't working for me and I don't want to participate." And then say it ad nauseum anytime they ask you to join a goal. Say it until they stop asking. 
Take a break and decide how it is that you want to pursue your self betterment.  

This feels like a trap.

True story: I happened to run into my stake presidency yesterday (it was ward conference in the other ward).  I was talking to them about the events of the weekend and one asked if I used Kiev or Kyiv. I explained that I use Kyiv and said explained that most Ukrainians won't actually care which you use, "but I have strongly assertive opinions."
the following is a direct quote from my stake president: "Noooooo...you? assertive opinions? I've never seen that before."
 

We won't be hearing from JAG anymore...in "unrelated" news, I have JAG's Chicken Kyiv

True story: I happened to run into my stake presidency yesterday (it was ward conference in the other ward).  I was talking to them about the events of the weekend and one asked if I used Kiev or Kyiv. I explained that I use Kyiv and said explained that most Ukrainians won't actually care which you use, "but I have strongly assertive opinions."
the following is a direct quote from my stake president: "Noooooo...you? assertive opinions? I've never seen that before."