Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We have been supplying anti-tank missiles for the past 8 years.  The Ukrainian military is today a lot better equipped than it was in 2014.

It's also a lot better trained.  Over the past 8 years, they've been fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So they're pretty well schooled in anti-insurgency, which is also a good way to learn insurgency tactics.

And that's where I would expect a Russian invasion to go.  Russia is going to gain a pretty speedy conventional victory, with its tanks rolling into Kyiv.  But then the real fun begins.  I fully expect the Ukrainian military to shift into an insurgency posture, and it has a lot of the right weaponry to do that.  This could be really difficult for Russia over the next several years.

Afghanistan 2: Electric Boogaloo. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Afghanistan 2: Electric Boogaloo. 

My kingdom for another Charlie Wilson.  Because "now playing the role of Charlie Wilson: Matt Gaetz" just doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

Because I mean, "you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to...not grow tits yet" is just icky.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been supplying anti-tank missiles for the past 8 years.  The Ukrainian military is today a lot better equipped than it was in 2014.
It's also a lot better trained.  Over the past 8 years, they've been fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So they're pretty well schooled in anti-insurgency, which is also a good way to learn insurgency tactics.
And that's where I would expect a Russian invasion to go.  Russia is going to gain a pretty speedy conventional victory, with its tanks rolling into Kyiv.  But then the real fun begins.  I fully expect the Ukrainian military to shift into an insurgency posture, and it has a lot of the right weaponry to do that.  This could be really difficult for Russia over the next several years.
This is Europe's concern, dude. Lots of gas pipelines into Europe run through Ukraine. They will be targeted and they will leave a lot of Europeans freezing in the dark. Europe needs Russia to leave Ukraine alone and they can't back Russia down without us.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, F250 said:

Will probably be more similar to Chechen 2 but without the Islamic insurgents.

 

Not so fast my friend. Remember the Balkan Muslims remember Russian support for the Serbs. 

Kosovo and Albania have voiced readiness to participate in any potential US-led mission in Ukraine, as fears of a Russian invasion mount. Their neighbours, Montenegro and North Macedonia, are yet to comment.

 

https://balkaninsight.com/2021/12/07/kosovo-albania-ready-to-help-any-potential-us-led-ukraine-mission/

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting tidbits from the meeting (according to this article):

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin-meeting-russia-ukraine-448047649195

  • Putin, for his part, came into the meeting seeking guarantees from Biden that the NATO military alliance will never expand to include Ukraine, which has long sought membership. The Americans and their NATO allies said that request was a non-starter.
  • There appeared to be no immediate breakthroughs to ease tensions on the Ukraine question,
  • Biden “told President Putin directly that if Russia further invades Ukraine, the United States and our European allies would respond with strong economic measures,”  and “provide additional defensive material to the Ukrainians … and we would fortify our NATO allies on the eastern flank with additional capabilities in response to such an escalation.”
  • Putin’s foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov dismissed the sanctions threat during a conference call with reporters. “While the U.S. president talked about possible sanctions, our president emphasized what Russia needs,” Ushakov said, adding that “sanctions aren’t something new, they have been in place for a long time and will not have any effect.”
  • Ukrainian officials charged Russia had further escalated the smoldering crisis by sending tanks and snipers to war-torn eastern Ukraine to “provoke return fire” and lay a pretext for a potential invasion.
  • Sullivan said the U.S. believes that Putin has not yet made a final decision to invade.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 5:53 PM, atomheartbevo said:

If nukes fly, then everybody's economy is going in the shitter as all trading between the associated countries stops, and embargoes/blockades/etc. go into effect, not to mention the damage from the nukes themselves.

So if it's going to economically nail everybody anyways, you don't have to go up to nukes - you just have to be willing to wage an instant economic war, and they have to know you are willing to do so.

Russia is able to handle its energy needs, but it imports a lot of food.  China imports even more food.  Both rely heavily on exports as well for their financial stability, especially China, but Russia as well. It would not be hard to bring either country to their knees, but the West and its allies in Asia have to be willing to take a hit to their economies.

Putin and Xi Jinping are not foolish.  Every action they order is based on them remaining in power.  Nukes flying means they've lost 100% control of the situation and puts their ability to remain in control of their countries in jeopardy (as nukes could damage the infrastructure and even kill off leadership needed for command control).

The West and its allies severing financial ties with either Russia or China also means that Putin or Xi Jinping have lost complete control, and it also jeopardizes their ability to remain in power/control of their countries, as if the economy starts shutting down and food and paychecks become an issue, that means millions/tens of millions will be in the streets (or hundreds of millions in the case of China).  All of the sudden, they will need the full resources and attention of their conventional military to remain in power.

Neither of those men have remained in power the way they have been without the ability to play a long game, and both are control freaks on some nature.  Nukes flying or total economic warfare takes their control away, and neither wants that.

 

 

On 12/6/2021 at 6:00 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

If an economic boycott can do it hell yeah, go for it.  

 

On 12/6/2021 at 7:18 PM, Hefeweizen said:

We don’t have the discipline.  Period.

The rare earth metal problem keeps us (and most of the first world economies) from having any serious cards to play with China even if we could somehow wean ourselves off their cheap labor and manufacturing. We would have to convince Europe to eat even higher petrol prices to have any significant impact on Russia. We have to be willing to eat some serious economic damage in order to truly punish China, same with Europe and Russia. We can’t even stomach single digit inflation, so maybe bullets and nukes flying is the more likely scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:
We have been supplying anti-tank missiles for the past 8 years.  The Ukrainian military is today a lot better equipped than it was in 2014.
It's also a lot better trained.  Over the past 8 years, they've been fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So they're pretty well schooled in anti-insurgency, which is also a good way to learn insurgency tactics.
And that's where I would expect a Russian invasion to go.  Russia is going to gain a pretty speedy conventional victory, with its tanks rolling into Kyiv.  But then the real fun begins.  I fully expect the Ukrainian military to shift into an insurgency posture, and it has a lot of the right weaponry to do that.  This could be really difficult for Russia over the next several years.

This is Europe's concern, dude. Lots of gas pipelines into Europe run through Ukraine. They will be targeted and they will leave a lot of Europeans freezing in the dark. Europe needs Russia to leave Ukraine alone and they can't back Russia down without us.

Germany is going to reap what it has sown with its lack of leadership on this issue.  

Germany has had this Weltanschauung since reunification that the Welt that it's going to schau ends at the Oder River.  Part of that is a result of the security that the transatlantic alliance has brought.  But part of it is also a German provincialism that has long inhibited any strategic thought in the German foreign-policy community.  Regardless, it's a real problem for a country that gets virtually all of its oil and gas from east of the Oder.

What they really need is for the United States to come in and say, "the United States is a guarantor of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum, and as such the honor of the United States requires that it will defend Ukraine with the full force of its military power."  But for the reasons previously stated, that's simply not going to happen.  And without that kind of statement, I don't think Russia has enough of a disincentive not to invade Ukraine (particularly as compared with its disincentives not to invade Ukraine, when we won't provide a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO).

Germany could step up with a statement that it would defend Ukraine, and that would likely be enough to forestall a Russian invasion.  But there's even less of a chance of that happening than the chance of the United States giving that assurance.  And given that Germany was never going to do that, it should've given some thought to how it could wean itself off Russian gas.  But it hasn't done that, either.  So now Germany's going to get awful cold.  And that's a shame.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

Tell me you aren't up to speed on the history and trends and current state of the semiconductor industry along with how the shortage, demand and forecast for chips is driving all the wealth-building innovation (DX initiatives, web3, industrial4.0, etc.) since about 2016 to the unforeseeable future, without telling me because you wanted to dunk on someone.

Why do you keep coming back here? How many times have you been crowd sourced?

Gtfo

Edited by MissingInAction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And given that Germany was never going to do that, it should've given some thought to how it could wean itself off Russian gas.  But it hasn't done that, either.  So now Germany's going to get awful cold.  And that's a shame.

Good thing the German Green Party had the foresight to get Germany to decommission its nuclear plants and become even more reliant on Russian gas. Dumb motherfuckers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

The rare earth metal problem keeps us (and most of the first world economies) from having any serious cards to play with China even if we could somehow wean ourselves off their cheap labor and manufacturing. We would have to convince Europe to eat even higher petrol prices to have any significant impact on Russia. We have to be willing to eat some serious economic damage in order to truly punish China, same with Europe and Russia. We can’t even stomach single digit inflation, so maybe bullets and nukes flying is the more likely scenario. 

Flip side to that is that COVID has given a lot of countries a lot of data on what happens when things get hard to get/ship.

We have to make China believe that we are willing to put hundreds of millions of Chinese out of work and on the streets at a steep cost to us.  That's China's nightmare scenario - they'd have to tie up all of their military and auxiliaries within their own borders, and what happens when Hong Kong takes advantage of that?

But making them believe we will do it is the hard part.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Germany is going to reap what it has sown with its lack of leadership on this issue.  

Yeah, Germany doesn't take Foreign Affairs seriously whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that Annalena Baerbock, a 40 year-old two-term congresswoman from Brandenberg with virtually no experience whatsoever in foreign policy was just named Foreign Minister here. Lavrov will eat her alive. But hey, she led the Greens to 14% of the vote as a candidate for Chancellor, so I guess that qualifies her to lead foreign policy strategy for the leading power in Europe in the eyes of the German people.

Edited by Shady Ray
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Joe Biden makes diplomatic concession to Russia with Nato talks plan

US president wants allies to discuss Moscow’s ‘concerns’ in attempt to prevent invasion of Ukraine

 

Joe Biden has made a significant diplomatic concession to Moscow designed to prevent an invasion of Ukraine, signalling he wants to convene meetings between Nato allies and Russia to discuss Vladimir Putin’s grievances with the transatlantic security pact. 

Speaking on Wednesday, a day after he held a bilateral call with Russia’s leader, the US president said he hoped to announce high-level talks by Friday “to discuss the future of Russia’s concerns relative to Nato writ large”. 

The talks would explore “whether or not we can work out any accommodation as it relates to bringing down the temperature along the eastern front”, Biden added. 

The US president said he hoped the participants would include not just Washington and Moscow but also “at least four of our major Nato allies”, although he declined to name the specific countries. 

Moscow wants Nato to commit to halting any eastward expansion and to refrain from deploying troops and equipment that could be used to attack Russia from neighbouring countries. 

But Biden’s reference to finding a potential “accommodation” with Moscow in eastern Europe will startle many eastern Nato members and US allies, who fear Putin is using the threat of military force to win concessions on the US security presence in Europe.

Putin on Wednesday reiterated his fear that Ukraine will join Nato, which he said would “undoubtedly be followed by the placement of relevant military contingents, bases, and weapons threatening us”.

“We are working on the assumption that our concerns will be heard at least this time,” he added. 

Though Putin has periodically demanded similar talks for more than a decade, Moscow’s “red lines” have come to the fore in the past month after the US warned allies Russia was massing up to 175,000 troops at its borders in preparation for a possible invasion of Ukraine early next year. 

Putin said talk of an invasion was “provocative” but did not explicitly rule out any military activity, saying that Russia “has the right to ensure its security . . . in the medium and long term”.

One senior official from an eastern Nato state told the Financial Times that “under no circumstances should the debate on guarantees in the context of European security be allowed to unfold”. 

Any talk of compromise with Moscow “must be immediately cut at the root”, they said, adding that this view was held by at least half a dozen EU members.

Putin said Russia would send a draft security agreement “in the next few days” to the US after agreeing to have “substantive” discussions with Biden during the call. The two leaders agreed to “form a structure that would deal with it in a detailed and thorough way”, Putin added.

Although a senior Biden administration official earlier in the week dismissed talk of red lines as unhelpful, the White House is keen to pursue a diplomatic route to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine.

Biden ruled out the unilateral use of force to confront Russia on Wednesday, instead focusing on spelling out what he said would be “severe consequences” were Putin to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. 

These included boosting military support to Ukraine, bolstering the US presence in Nato countries to reassure those on the eastern flank and assembling a punishing economic sanctions package. 

The sanctions would target debt and banking transactions and attempt to scupper the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that links Russia and Germany, which has been built but is not yet pumping gas, according to officials briefed on the plans.

“I made it very clear [in the call with Putin] if in fact, he invades Ukraine, there will be severe consequences . . . economic consequences like none he’s ever seen,” Biden told reporters on Wednesday. 

“I am absolutely confident he got the message.”

Additional reporting by Lauren Fedor in Washington

 

https://www.ft.com/content/8b151011-2054-4aa7-8b4c-fee8835529e5#comments-anchor

 

Did not see this one coming.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Yeah, Germany doesn't take Foreign Affairs seriously whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that Annalena Baerbock, a 40 year-old two-term congresswoman from Brandenberg with virtually no experience whatsoever in foreign policy was just named Foreign Minister here. Lavrov will eat her alive. But hey, she led the Greens to 14% of the vote as a candidate for Chancellor, so I guess that qualifies her to lead foreign policy strategy for the leading power in Europe in the eyes of the German people.

Counterpoint: she’s kind of a babe, and totally my type. I bet I could coach her up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Counterpoint: she’s kind of a babe, and totally my type. I bet I could coach her up.

I will give you that. She truly is the best looking of the German national politicians, so the tallest midg- er...little person.

 

Just be glad you don't have to hear that accent regularly...gotttttdammmn that thing is rough, even by German standards. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give you that. She truly is the best looking of the German national politicians, so the tallest midg- er...little person.
 
Just be glad you don't have to hear that accent regularly...gotttttdammmn that thing is rough, even by German standards. 
 

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t judge how I like my dirty talk, thank you very much.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia can’t risk a war with the rest of Europe. It would destroy them financially. If Europe decided to go another direction for natural gas, and cut off trade with Russia, Russia would lose a large chunk of their gdp immediately. Russia isn’t exactly a financial powerhouse and almost all of their financial trade is to the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Diplomacy over violence 

Yep. And a smart move, IMO. Any action over there must not been seen here as a decision by the US pushed onto NATO without involving European leadership (and Stoltenberg doesn't count for these purposes). While yes, this is a matter of global importance, it is also in our backyard and it is likely to spill over here in ways that the average American doesn't consider when looking at it through a strictly US lens. So it is good policy to involve leaders here, IMO.

 

In the countries that de-facto run the EU - so, Germany and France - this is a risky time for NATO, given current attitudes towards the scattershot detours NATO has taken in other regions (see Libya, Afghanistan, etc.). Europe is finally recognizing how deficient its collective military capacity is, and it is realizing that it may be time for a change in how it approaches this beyond simply relying on the US, which is increasingly seen as erratic and intrusive to EU interests (i.e. AUKUS submarine type shit). The are calling it "strategic autonomy" in the media as of late. In fact, every single element of Germany’s new coalition government campaigned on a decisive move towards the establishment of an EU Army, separate from (although, as they say as a bone to Washington, “interoperable with”) NATO. This has long been a French pet project. Well, now it is slowly becoming a German one, as well...at least in the sense that German politicians are openly discussing it for the first time in the course of campaigns. Which means it is going to be an EU project eventually…albeit the speed that Brussels moves can certainly be mindnumbingly slow. But the point is, the momentum is picking up and with the new German government, there is an increased willingness to see the French as the standard-bearer for military matters, with the Germans the leader of the economic wing. And the French want this EU Army idea to move ahead.

 

Making this a true joint endeavour, both diplomatically and militarily, will take a lot of wind from the anti-NATO crowd if shit kicks off. Alternatively, if Western Europe feels like it was dragged into a military conflict over there, it will accelerate new security policies if shit goes sideways, IMO.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shady Ray said:

The are calling it "strategic autonomy" in the media as of late. In fact, every single element of Germany’s new coalition government campaigned on a decisive move towards the establishment of an EU Army, separate from (although, as they say as a bone to Washington, “interoperable with”) NATO. This has long been a French pet project. Well, now it is slowly becoming a German one, as well...at least in the sense that German politicians are openly discussing it for the first time in the course of campaigns. Which means it is going to be an EU project eventually…albeit the speed that Brussels moves can certainly be mindnumbingly slow. But the point is, the momentum is picking up and with the new German government, there is an increased willingness to see the French as the standard-bearer for military matters, with the Germans the leader of the economic wing. And the French want this EU Army idea to move ahead.

Umm, do they have short memories?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Umm, do they have short memories?

LOL. I definitely get the sentiment. But the French of course have a great military and- more importantly - they have nukes, which is a huge deal because the Germans are terrified of going nuclear in any way for internal Kraut past-life traumatic reasons. But they know that a nuclear umbrella is important, but not necessarily one attached to the US at the moment. Hell, the winners of the recent elections want US nukes off German territory, which will be an interesting topic to follow as the new government gets to work.

 

Quote

 

Germany’s nuclear option: No nukes

Cold War ghosts haunt coalition talks.

BERLIN — Can Germany be trusted to drop the big one?

So far that question has been a footnote in ongoing coalition talks between the three winners of the country’s September election. Yet for both the rest of Europe and the transatlantic alliance, it couldn’t be more explosive.

At issue is whether Berlin will continue to honor a decades-old commitment to drop atomic bombs on Russia in the event of an attack on the West.

...

But with Germany’s fleet of nuclear-equipped bombers at the end of their lifespan, the country’s new government has to decide whether it wants to be a NATO partner in name only. For many observers, the answer is clear.

“The political consequences would be grave,” said Roderich Kiesewetter, an MP from the conservative Christian Democrats and a retired German army colonel. “We could see a cascade effect on a number of fronts.”

Few issues get Germans’ political juices flowing quite like a good nuclear debate.

...

t’s little surprise then, with the SPD on the cusp of taking back control of the chancellery for the first time in more than 15 years, that the nuclear question is back on the agenda. Rolf Mützenich, a veteran of those earlier battles who now heads the SPD’s parliamentary group, created a stir last year by demanding that the U.S. withdraw its remaining nuclear warheads, believed to number a couple of dozen, from German soil. Nuclear sharing is a “dated concept,” he argued.

At the time, many dismissed the call as the ramblings of an aging peace activist. But now, Mützenich, who wrote his doctoral thesis about “nuclear-free zones,” is one of the most powerful politicians in Germany.

“I want to see as few atomic weapons in the world as possible,” he told German public radio in a recent interview, reiterating his opposition to maintaining Germany’s role in NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-nuclear-option-no-nukes/

 

 

 

As I mentioned, the US-driven NATO position here is more tenuous than the media in the US tends to acknowledge. In the past week, the new coalition government has kinda "yada yada yada'd" the nuclear topic and given some mild assurances that they still want to be part of the "NATO team", but the point remains that the two biggest electoral winners here of the September election campaigned aggressively on "No More US Nukes on German Soil." And two of the three are fairly adamant that they want more EU control over military policy, with the Greens being a bit more flexible to NATO (sans US nukes), oddly enough. That, of course, leads to a very tricky situation as moving them to Poland or Romania will only serve to ratchet up tensions at a time when they need to be ratcheted down. Either way, popular sentiment is towards a reformation of NATO, at the very minimum. 

 

In my professional capacity, I spend a lot of time in Brussels managing regulatory matters in a highly-regulated area of commerce for a German company. While I don't deal directly with anything touching German security policy/foreign relations, I do know a ton of people who do. The opinion that I hear in those circles is that the new generation of German decision-makers feel much more comfortable sharing the drivers seat wrt to matters of defense with the French than they do sitting in the backseat of a car driven by the US. The question will be whether that changes after this Russia situation settles down and the Afghanistan debacle is further in the rear-view.

 

But nevertheless, ask yourself this...you think the new SPD German Minister of Defense looks like she is down for war? 

 

spacer.png

 

Anyway, here is the latest on what to expect on foreign policy from the new government:

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-germany-chancellor-frozen-foreign-policy/

Edited by Shady Ray
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eastwood said:
7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:
Diplomacy over violence 

Diplomacy without preparation for violence is how nations fall.

Well, that's a fairly simplistic and sophomoric take that is belied by innumerable examples throughout history (e.g., Cortez's conquest of the Aztec Empire, the entire history of the Republic of Venice, the British Empire in India).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Well, that's a fairly simplistic and sophomoric take that is belied by innumerable examples throughout history (e.g., Cortez's conquest of the Aztec Empire, the entire history of the Republic of Venice, the British Empire in India).


Did you just list the Aztec Empire and India, both countries that fell because they tried to be diplomatic with a conquering nation?

Might as well add France before World War 2, while you're at it.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eastwood said:


 

 


Did you just list the Aztec Empire and India, both countries that fell because they tried to be diplomatic with a conquering nation?

Might as well add France before World War 2, while you're at it.

 

No--I listed the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire and the British overlordship of India as examples in which diplomacy not only didn't lead to the fall of nation, but greatly expanded the nation's reach, notwithstanding the the conquerers' lack of preparation or present ability to use violence.  In both cases, the conquest was accomplished entirely through diplomacy in reaching deals with disaffected local groups.

When you look at the history of the British Empire, it's impossible to argue that it ever had the preparation for or present ability to use military force in any decisive way throughout its expansion.  As was quickly demonstrated at the outset of World War I, the British Army was tiny and not particularly well equipped.  And that was the case throughout the nineteenth century.  The critical thing about Britain and its ability to project power wasn't in its military power; it was its economic, financial, and diplomatic capabilities.

Contrast that with Germany in both world wars.  Germany was unquestionably the strongest military power entering both wars.  But through diplomatic bungling, Germany put itself at an extreme disadvantage, to the point where the German state was ultimately annihilated, its cities burned, and millions of its people killed.

So really, when you say that "Diplomacy without preparation for violence is how nations fall," it doesn't just show a singular ignorance of history; it actually reflects the opposite of reality.  It is the preparation for violence without diplomacy that has caused the fall of numerous nations (e.g., Baathist Iraq, the Third Reich, the German Empire, the Second French Empire, the First French Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire).  In each case, the country involved spent lavishly on its armed forces, but was undone through diplomatic failures.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



So really, when you say that "Diplomacy without preparation for violence is how nations fall," it doesn't just show a singular ignorance of history; it actually reflects the opposite of reality.  It is the preparation for violence without diplomacy that has caused the fall of numerous nations (e.g., Baathist Iraq, the Third Reich, the German Empire, the Second French Empire, the First French Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire).  In each case, the country involved spent lavishly on its armed forces, but was undone through diplomatic failures.
 


Look, you and I have been posting on essentially the same message board for 15 years. I know how this is going to go. I'm going to reply and you're going flick the loose end of your Union Jack scarf over your shoulder, crack your knuckles, calmly place your hands on your keyboard, and begin typing, "well, you see old boy, for one to really understand the intricacies of diplomacy as it relates to the sovereign power of nations, one must understand the impact of the Treaty of Westphalia..." and somehow along the way you'll go on a tangent about the Teutonic Order, and then talk about some ancient Peruvian tribe that introduced the didgeridoo to Australia, which led to the downfall of western Polynesia.

The examples you have given are of countries that were conquered because they did not prepare to militarily defend themselves. And you crow about the British Empire, on which at one point the sun never set, but being ill-prepared for both World Wars led to the loss of territory and power to the point where they were no longer the world's superpower, being superceded by the United States.

The preparation for violence without diplomacy is also the path to ruin. You'll get no argument from me there. But on all your other points, you're looking through the opposite lens of history than I am. You are looking at all those who have conquered by word and pen, while I look through the lens of those that they have conquered by not having the military might, or the will to use military might, to resist.

If Europe and the United States are not prepared to defend the Ukraine with military force, then the Soviet Union will be rebuilt within Putin's lifetime. Diplomacy over violence, when the choice presents itself. Putin offers no such choice. Only the illusion of choice.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, Germany doesn't take Foreign Affairs seriously whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that Annalena Baerbock, a 40 year-old two-term congresswoman from Brandenberg with virtually no experience whatsoever in foreign policy was just named Foreign Minister here.

See the source image

 

Das Brandenberger Shachtelgesicht 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Eastwood said:


 

 


Look, you and I have been posting on essentially the same message board for 15 years. I know how this is going to go. I'm going to reply and you're going flick the loose end of your Union Jack scarf over your shoulder, crack your knuckles, calmly place your hands on your keyboard, and begin typing, "well, you see old boy, for one to really understand the intricacies of diplomacy as it relates to the sovereign power of nations, one must understand the impact of the Treaty of Westphalia..." and somehow along the way you'll go on a tangent about the Teutonic Order, and then talk about some ancient Peruvian tribe that introduced the didgeridoo to Australia, which led to the downfall of western Polynesia.

 

I feel seen.

19 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

That certainly wasn't the case with their Navy, which was one of the reasons they were able to project their economic power

Yeah, but the point is that the military was a tool to enhance the diplomatic and economic supremacy.  That's where the military is most effective.

If you're using your diplomats to further/preserve your military superiority, then you've kind of got things backwards and you're not going to have very satisfactory outcomes.  

In other words, military strength is a means to an end.  But I think we have come to think of it as an objective in its own right.  And that's fucked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Here you go. Accent and all.

Her general delivery reminds me of a smiling version of the Martians in "Mars Attacks," but as for the trilled R, I like it, I love it, I want more of it.

When all this trouble clears and I inevitably emerge as Emperor of Europe, I am outlawing that lower-class Parisian gargle that passes for an R on both sides of the Rhine, and returning my subjects to the pure original trilled R. It's the one Varus used when he was hunting legions in the Teutoburger Wald, it's the trilled R that proto-Froggy and proto-Kraut used to lie to each other when they were plotting to stab old Lothar in the back. It must be restored not just for my aesthetic sensibilities (good enough reason) but because if not, Europe and the world could slide into the mumbling affliction of the Danes, who have to hire Norwegians to follow them around and enunciate so that even other Danes can understand them.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Counterpoint: she’s kind of a babe, and totally my type. I bet I could coach her up.

I see your Germany and raise with Finland ... who also seems like a hell of a lot of fun!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/sanna-marin-finland-prime-minister-covid19-clubbing-apology-b970859.html

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to Russia declares independence on behalf of the Ukraine so it can protect the Ukraine or something like that
  • immamac changed the title to Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...