Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

Quote

This is exactly what “the West is ready to fight to the last Ukrainian” implies.  


 

No. Ukraine putting up a fight helps NATO. They are using weapons almost as good as NATO would use, and they obviously have fewer troops than NATO would apply. It serves as a future deterrent to Russia. (And China). 

Russia’s attack strengthened the NATO alliance. 

The point is- the west is helped by the Ukrainians fighting. Yet, the west is not supplying troops. There is something cynical about this calculation and I’m not proud of it. That said, as I posted above, as long as Ukraine wants to fight, I want us to support them. 

Edited by statsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people may be getting their swing wing SU-24s confused with T-160s. Correct me if I'm wrong, we've only seen TU-160s and TU-95s using ALCMs from way outside Ukraine mostly over the Caspian. 
But I would love to be wrong, especially as I think Russia just finished(?) modernizing them. 

This is looking to be the case.

Reports the high voltage power line towers between Zaporizhzhia NPP and Crimea are starting to fall over.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fico said:

I think people may be getting their swing wing SU-24s confused with T-160s. Correct me if I'm wrong, we've only seen TU-160s and TU-95s using ALCMs from way outside Ukraine mostly over the Caspian. 

But I would love to be wrong, especially as I think Russia just finished(?) modernizing them. 

Yep, and the Su-24 is used in Russian naval aviation and from that operating base.  
 

As long as Russia has guided ALCMs, it makes no sense to use their strategic aviation over Ukrainian territory.  They don’t have air superiority and they don’t want to lose those assets, which is why they are standing off.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall reading somewhere that there is only 1 water plant that feeds Crimea with drinkable water since they cannot get it there, would be a shame if Ukrainians took it out, the exodus would be a lot more then now.

 

seems like power lines to Crimea are magically falling down, would be a shame if water production was halted 

Edited by Gengs1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Take a breath, Man.  As much as we disagree with Statsman's conclusion, his logic is valid.  This thread is just so awesomely cool, and acrimony can kill it.  I'm saying this as your friend.  I hope you understand that.

Don't let my profuse use of profanity and imagery fool you, I'm not a pot boiling over here. I was going to just be dismissive of his bad takes, but honestly this isn't the first time he's come on this thread wringing his hands over his view of how things should be going, while entirely dismissing the wants and desires of the people who are actually suffering. While, at the same time...being upset at the US and NATO for not taking a path that would potentially create much more suffering?

He should take his emotional and logically flawed musings to an entirely new thread where he can plead his case to the board, if this is going to be the case. You're right, this is a great thread and shouldn't be sullied by the equivalent of a kid walking into the middle of a movie and asking questions. 

I will say, however, that his logic is not valid, unless by valid you mean "everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how poor." We've seen this pattern time and again, and the answer is always that appeasement leads to further trouble down the line, inevitably. Does this situation suck? Absolutely. Does appeasing Russia inevitably lead to more deaths and loss of lives at a later date? Also Absolutely. It's like the guy is still surprised Hitler didn't stop with Poland. Who could have imagined?!?!

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Zelensky is an acknowledged pro of reading his audience.  He knows exactly which notes to hit for each country he goes to, it's not just the US.

But reaching back for the Revolutionary album?  And playing that old hit Saratoga?  That's masterful.

Until the Monday after the invasion started, it sounded more like The Battle of Termopylea.  I like the Saratoga much better.  These guitar riffs just rock.

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

3 hours ago, statsman said:

I guess we’re approaching 6 months? The Russian assumption was that some combination of overwhelming Russian power, welcoming by Ukrainians, and instability of Ukrainian government and armed forces would allow them to take over in days, creating a fait accompli before the west had time to respond?

There is no doubt that the Ukrainian response is remarkable. Russia badly miscalculated just about everything. 

I have to admit that I am very much disheartened by the savagery of the Russian troops and leadership. They are willing to sacrifice their own indiscriminately, and even more ready to assault, torture and murder Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. And to despoil the land for generations. 

Plus, there are the nukes. The nukes are the reason the west is holding back full support. Because of the nukes, if Russia is successful with indiscriminate bombing and civilian slaughter, western armies will not send troops in support. Because of the nukes, the western support comes with strings attached. 

I find myself a little disturbed by my happiness in the reports of dead Russian soldiers, but it is balanced by my disgust of the Russian murderous cruelty to civilians and captured POWs. I have been downvoted here for prior expressions of desire for a truce, even one that surrenders territory to Russia. My motive is a wish for an end to the Ukrainian suffering, and a fear that Russia can and will get more barbaric, using their nuclear threat as a backstop against western retaliation. It seems to me, that unless Putin were to die, the likely outcomes are either a protracted vicious war of attrition (with Ukrainian civilians doing most of the attriting), or a brutal Russian victory. I don’t see NATO openly joining in as long as Russia doesn’t expand (NATO needs to make it clear that if Russia expands, we are coming in). 

I can see even a bad truce as superior to either outcome noted above. That said, I don’t get a vote. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to keep fighting on, I support arming them as much as possible. I also support helping any Ukrainians that wish to relocate outside the country for the duration. I marvel at their willingness to endure as much as they have so far, and it’s not my place to tell them that it’s too much. 

Sanctions are good, but I don’t have delusions about them. As soon as Putin dies, a new leadership in Russia will state that Putin was driving everything, they (the new guys) are reasonable and let’s negotiate those sanctions away and do business. Of course, the western business leaders will want to do business. I hope some international body does an accounting of costs (property, injuries, lives) and makes reparations a requirement for sanction lifting. 

Ten years after the war, I expect us all to be working with Russians again. I’m sure they will tell us that we only heard one side of the story, that there is more to it. In our minds, we’ll be remembering the pregnant mother shot on the bridge, fleeing, the little girl with her legs blown off, but we’ll be silent, because it’s our job and what’s the point after all? (Somehow, the “Fawlty Towers” episode where they are exhorted to not mention the war to the German tourists won’t be as funny). They’ll say they were victims of Putin as much as anyone and we’ll probably nod along in agreement that that guy was an asshole. 

Thanks for bearing with me on this long post. I’m just trying to figure out how this ends (a Putin death seems like the simplest route to the least pain), and disheartened by the cost (more in lives and innocence than in dollars) of getting there. 

In response to the portion I just bolded: Then you don't understand what Russia's overall goals are. Their goals are to steal what they can, sign a truce once the West loses the stomach for the losses and savagery, re-arm, then do it again. And again. And again.

They won't stop this until they are beaten. Ukraine and Poland understand this.

If we sign a truce now, we only guarantee the next invasion, the next set of atrocities. There's a word for this kind of policy: Appeasement. We already know it doesn't work in these situations.

We must support Ukraine until Russia is completely defeated and disarmed. Then, we must ensure Russia is never able to arm itself again. Changing the leadership won't change Russia's geopolitical goals; these have always been the goals of Moscow.

Only through total victory will Eastern Europe be safe.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a great point if I actually advocated for appeasement. I didn’t. 

I recognized that this war will end in one of three ways:

1. Russia wins. 
2. Ukraine wins

3. Some negotiated situation. 

Nobody is ever happy with negotiated outcomes, yet that’s how a bunch of wars end. We’re six months in to a war,  proxy for us, real for Ukraine. A whole lot of lives have been wasted or ruined and a whole lot more will be before we get to ending 1, 2, or 3. 

Im rooting for Ukraine as much, or more, than any of you. I’m as disgusted by Russia as any of you. I don’t think my rooting will have any impact on the outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, statsman said:

That would be a great point if I actually advocated for appeasement. I didn’t. 

I recognized that this war will end in one of three ways:

1. Russia wins. 
2. Ukraine wins

3. Some negotiated situation. 

Nobody is ever happy with negotiated outcomes, yet that’s how a bunch of wars end. We’re six months in to a war,  proxy for us, real for Ukraine. A whole lot of lives have been wasted or ruined and a whole lot more will be before we get to ending 1, 2, or 3. 

Im rooting for Ukraine as much, or more, than any of you. I’m as disgusted by Russia as any of you. I don’t think my rooting will have any impact on the outcome. 

You LITERALLY said that a bad truce (#3) was superior than any outcome above. That is a direct quite. That is the definition of you ADVOCATING for a negotiated truce. 

You claim to be rooting for Ukraine potentially more than any of us, but you're doing so in a way that doesn't respect the wants and wishes of the actual Ukrainian people. Honestly, it sounds like you'd be ok with all of this if Russia was JUST a LITTLE less Rapey And Murdery while they were invading another land and deliberately targeting and killing innocent civilians. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

All a bad truce does, including conceding some territory to Putin, is provide some breathing room for Putin to prepare for another go at Ukraine. 

Putin is not reasonable.  Russia took territory in 2014   It wasn’t enough for them, they wanted Ukraine’s oil and gas and people.  

The only outcome that doesn’t set up another Russian invasion in the future is fully kicking them out of Ukraine and wrecking the Russian economy and military   

The fact that Russia is kidnapping Ukrainian kids and taking them back to Russia, and publicly boasting on the official Russian state TV that they will raise these kids right speaks to the very evil and batshit craziness of Putin and Russian society.

This.  Mentioned it much earlier in the thread, but as someone whose entire career has been "adversarial conflict and resolution of same," there are some adversaries who demonstrate a pattern of conduct that indicates that a negotiated good-faith resolution will not solve the problem.  Instead, you have to just knuckle down, and defeat them.  This is that sort of situation.  Putin has made that abundantly clear, and any other take is wishcasting, because war sucks, it inflicts massive human suffering, and when nuclear powers are involved, it's extra scary.  But it's still the truth.

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Cactus, gents and atomheart, I don’t disagree with any of your comments. My problem is that I am chagrined by the truth of the comment “the west is prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian”. Not proud of that. 

Except.....

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

We're not pushing them to the front line. They asked us for support. We are giving it. If they want to throw on the brakes that's up to them. But, the opposite is true. They want more from us. 

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Every indication is that Ukrainians want to fight.  How patronizing is it to suggest that they are our puppets and just need us to stop helping them so they can come to their senses and sign a bad treaty? 

 

1 hour ago, statsman said:

No. Ukraine putting up a fight helps NATO. They are using weapons almost as good as NATO would use, and they obviously have fewer troops than NATO would apply. It serves as a future deterrent to Russia. (And China). 

Russia’s attack strengthened the NATO alliance. 

The point is- the west is helped by the Ukrainians fighting. Yet, the west is not supplying troops. There is something cynical about this calculation and I’m not proud of it. That said, as I posted above, as long as Ukraine wants to fight, I want us to support them. 

Damn right we're not supplying troops, because that is a DIRECT war between the US and Russia, and....

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

So you want a full fledged WW3? NATO unleashed and the full weight of the west behind it?

What the hell are you thinking? 

Ukraine WANTS to fight.  Russia is a bad and dangerous actor that needs to be dealt with.  The US etc. doing so directly creates a heightened risk of the kind of escalation that could risk hundreds of millions of lives.

We are walking EXACTLY the right line.  Ukraine will forever be in debt to the West for giving them to the tools to turn their will to fight and rage against an invader into results and freedom for them.  And the free world will forever be in debt to Ukraine for spending their blood in this fight.  The ledger will be even when all is said and done.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, statsman said:

That would be a great point if I actually advocated for appeasement. I didn’t. 

You can't advocate for Appeasement, then claim you didn't.

Or do you just not understand that what you did advocate for is the literal definition of Appeasement?

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

2 hours ago, Fico said:

I think people may be getting their swing wing SU-24s confused with T-160s. Correct me if I'm wrong, we've only seen TU-160s and TU-95s using ALCMs from way outside Ukraine mostly over the Caspian. 

But I would love to be wrong, especially as I think Russia just finished(?) modernizing them. 

 

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

1 hour ago, statsman said:


 

No. Ukraine putting up a fight helps NATO. They are using weapons almost as good as NATO would use, and they obviously have fewer troops than NATO would apply. It serves as a future deterrent to Russia. (And China). 

Russia’s attack strengthened the NATO alliance. 

The point is- the west is helped by the Ukrainians fighting. Yet, the west is not supplying troops. There is something cynical about this calculation and I’m not proud of it. That said, as I posted above, as long as Ukraine wants to fight, I want us to support them. 

This is not the Red Army sitting on far bank of the Vistula during the Warsaw Uprising. 

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

20 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

There's a certain nationalist bigotry in criticisms of US policy, that the critics have to deny other country's their agency to make the criticisms. People who think the CIA overthrew Allende in Chile are among these; while the CIA helped a little bit, Allende would've been overthrown had the US never been involved. You have to be impressively ignorant of everything that was happening in Chile to make that claim.

"US will fight to the last Ukrainian" is another great example of this. We are helping Ukrainians win their war. They are not fighting ours. But it is in everyone's best interests that Ukraine wins.

Everyone except Russia, of course.

The Office Thank You GIF

One of the ways to tell if you’re reading trash about this conflict is if the explainer and pontificator doesn’t cite a single Ukrainian but spends a lot of time talking about memos from James Baker or quoting Putin at the Munich Security Conference in 2008. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

that's a HUGE blow to the russian air force either way. EIGHT fucking aircraft destroyed??? That's HUGE! Especially when they can't exactly requisition more materiel 

This might very well make their fixed-wing combat naval aviation defunct for all purposes in the Black Sea region. They’ll have to redirect assets from other fleets if they want to stand it up again. 

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

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This might very well make their fixed-wing combat naval aviation defunct for all purposes in the Black Sea region. They’ll have to redirect assets from other fleets if they want to stand it up again. 

I’m just picturing those hundreds or even thousands of Russians that are fleeing Crimea, and what they are going to tell their friends and relatives about why they had to flee.  That psychological blow is far larger than any lost aircraft.

And this is in reference to Belarus last night.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This might very well make their fixed-wing combat naval aviation defunct for all purposes in the Black Sea region. They’ll have to redirect assets from other fleets if they want to stand it up again. 

I really am curious for after this conflict is over to learn more about the raid. The Ukrainians (as far as we know) committed a few missiles and some special forces to achieve a tactical knockout blow for russias air units in the region, and are adding a ton of stress to their strategic operations. 

Between this and sinking the Moskva, russia really won't have any antiair capacity left in the region, which bodes well for Ukraine's Crimean and Kherson offensives

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

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Ukrainians aren't our puppets or tools. They are our allies. We are working together towards and outcome that helps all of us, but they themselves first and foremost.

And if there weren’t nukes involved, we’d be doing a lot more. A loss in Ukraine from an invasion Russia made should not cross the threshold of a national security threat to Russia, justifying a nuclear response, but unfortunately Putin is a very mentally ill man who doesn’t see it that way.

Speaking of kindred spirits

 

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

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

it seems weird to me that losing 8 planes would bring them to their knees. 8 doesn't seem like a lot.

putin starting this war has to be the greatest military blunder ever, right?*

*i am not a military historian.

They have been a paper Tiger so it stands to reason their Air Force is shit (they never even achieved air superiority) and It keeps forcing them to dig older stuff out of storage.  Speaking of older stuff in storage..

 

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

How soon until she meets a middle-aged American online and gets a new hubby and couple of more kids?

Looks more like morning attire than mourning attire.
edit: she’s even wearing ducking tennis shoes
Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

FZ17KMHX0AAYCip?format=jpg&name=medium

Nice article. Interesting info:

Most of the aircraft destruction is in the revetments – ironically used to protect aircraft from events like this. If only the Russian’s used HAS’s (Hardened Air Shelters) – they may not be feeling the pain. The good news is, they are.

The revetments have given up three Su-24’s and three Su-30’s. A further Su-24 is destroyed at the eastern maintenance minor workshop shed.

And this is where it all gets interesting.

The actual targets.

Two minor workshop sheds have been totally targeted and destroyed. Moreover, two other areas that were targeted – or appeared to have been – were general parking areas used for vehicles and equipment.

It is strange that the two large munitions areas and the fuel depots were also not targeted. And to be honest, if an aircraft has been destroyed on the main flightline, I suspect this is from secondary explosions and fire rather than a direct strike as there is no crater present. Why wasn’t this area targeted?

The area around the parking revetments is dotted with small craters, possibly from debris. But they do look more like explosive craters rather than that caused by falling debris.

...

There is still no conclusive evidence as to what was used in this attack.

I’ve always thought a Ukrainian SF mission – which I didn’t want to say in the other blog as it was still a recent event and there was a slight OPSEC concern with me to be honest. The Ukrainian armed forces have stated it was a SF mission also.

However, the craters visible do point to a missile strike, with a good friend betting a ATACMS strike.

I’m still torn.

Maybe the maintenance sheds held more than scrap parts of aircraft to keep the main line going from day to day. I’d like to say the Russians aren’t that stupid – but since March, they’ve clearly shown they are.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I should add that not all, or even most, criticism of US policy is based in nationalist bigotry that denies other countries' and peoples' agency.

Just from that peculiar hardcore who think Noam Chomsky is smart about anything other than Math, and whenever something terrible happens look to the West first for explanation.

Ukrainians aren't our puppets or tools. They are our allies. We are working together towards and outcome that helps all of us, but they themselves first and foremost.

Y'all are all correct a thousand percent and I agree. However, having argued this point to Russian stooges/trolls on the internet they live in a whole other world. They claim this is a US Proxy war because they have all been told that the US manufactured the revolution of dignity and that the Euromaidan to unseat Yanukovych was a CIA op. So their entire manufactured excuse to invade Ukraine and create a fake insurgency in the East was in order to restore the pre-Euromaidan (i.e. Putin's puppet) government.

So when you see people calling it a proxy war, it's JUST as likely that they're believers in this conspiracy theory narrative and not necessarily because of national bigotry.

Edited by MillerEP
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, statsman said:


 

No. Ukraine putting up a fight helps NATO. They are using weapons almost as good as NATO would use, and they obviously have fewer troops than NATO would apply. It serves as a future deterrent to Russia. (And China). 

Russia’s attack strengthened the NATO alliance. 

The point is- the west is helped by the Ukrainians fighting. Yet, the west is not supplying troops. There is something cynical about this calculation and I’m not proud of it. That said, as I posted above, as long as Ukraine wants to fight, I want us to support them. 

You think France would have given the colonies troops if they had vastly superior weapons compared to the British that they could use solely to arm the Yanks?  Not a chance.  They'd have spent $$ on transporting the shit here, and let us fight it out ourselves.  Unfortunately, that was not the case in the late 18th century.   It is the case now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Y'all are all correct a thousand percent and I agree. However, having argued this point to Russian stooges/trolls on the internet they live in a whole other world. They claim this is a US Proxy war because they have all been told that the US manufactured the revolution of dignity and that the Euromaidan to unseat Yanukovych was a CIA op. So their entire manufactured excuse to invade Ukraine and create a fake insurgency in the East was in order to restore the pre-Euromaidan (i.e. Putin's puppet) government.

So when you see people calling it a proxy war, it's JUST as likely that they're believers in this conspiracy theory narrative and not necessarily because of national bigotry.

Well, this is how the Russian trolls work, to drive a wedge between the Left and Right with lies they're already inclined to believe.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...