Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I wouldn't call what we're doing "escalation." We're increasing our support levels over time. But we're not directly involved, and most importantly, we're not leading the charge. Ukraine is in charge, and we're proving to be great allies to them in their time of need.

It's like... if your friend wanted to start their own business. You want your friend to succeed, but you also know that giving money to friends just because they're a friend is bad for both business and friendships. You spend some time helping them get set up, but then it happens: They lose their day job. Now this business has to succeed or fail on its own merit. And to everyone's surprise, that prep paid off.

So now you and a bunch of other friends put together an Angel round, so the business can keep going, with promises of more funds if they show they can do it.

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

So yeah, you're increasing your support, but you're not escalating. Because your friend is running their company, and they're the ones who make the decisions. Yeah, we're going to make scads of dough off their success, but it's still their enterprise, not ours.

Except that instead of being money guys we are supplying them with technology and software licenses as well, meanwhile we own all that tech and software so we stop selling it to their main competitors and penalize anyone who tries to work around that. Oh and we are also sending an army of trainers to train staff and new hires all while covering the implementation cost of the complex system that allows you to compete with the incumbents. Oh and we are also licensing, for free, some extremely advanced technology that the other competitors don’t have. 

After all that we are also getting every other partner or integration to actually stop using any of the competitors even if it’s bad for them. 
 

to say the US hasn’t escalated this is hilarious and wrong, but we still aren’t directly involved technically speaking. 

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

29 minutes ago, immamac said:

Except that instead of being money guys we are supplying them with technology and software licenses as well, meanwhile we own all that tech and software so we stop selling it to their main competitors and penalize anyone who tries to work around that. Oh and we are also sending an army of trainers to train staff and new hires all while covering the implementation cost of the complex system that allows you to compete with the incumbents. Oh and we are also licensing, for free, some extremely advanced technology that the other competitors don’t have. 

After all that we are also getting every other partner or integration to actually stop using any of the competitors even if it’s bad for them. 
 

to say the US hasn’t escalated this is hilarious and wrong, but we still aren’t directly involved technically speaking. 

 

40 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I wouldn't call what we're doing "escalation." We're increasing our support levels over time. But we're not directly involved, and most importantly, we're not leading the charge. Ukraine is in charge, and we're proving to be great allies to them in their time of need.

It's like... if your friend wanted to start their own business. You want your friend to succeed, but you also know that giving money to friends just because they're a friend is bad for both business and friendships. You spend some time helping them get set up, but then it happens: They lose their day job. Now this business has to succeed or fail on its own merit. And to everyone's surprise, that prep paid off.

So now you and a bunch of other friends put together an Angel round, so the business can keep going, with promises of more funds if they show they can do it.

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

So yeah, you're increasing your support, but you're not escalating. Because your friend is running their company, and they're the ones who make the decisions. Yeah, we're going to make scads of dough off their success, but it's still their enterprise, not ours.

The problem is that any support in any form can at some level be viewed as an escalation from one side while the other views it as a counter to a previous escalation by the other side.

Outside of direct military assistance that is outlined either via treaty or blatantly disregarding international law, everything else is a varying shade of gray. So the real issue is not have X crossed the proverbial line and escalated the conflict, but instead what level of conflict are both sides willing to go and why are we doing it.
 

Yes, this is a war for freedom against an unjust invasion, foremost. But don’t delude ourselves that it isn’t also a proxy war to demonstrate us capabilities in a non-guerilla war style of engagement. This is a message to everyone regarding how much better our weapons and tactics really are in comparison to the Russian approach (cough cough here looking at you China). This is also a sales demo regarding the power of alliances with the west, the importance of the NATO nations staying current in the global arms tech race, and an open demonstration of the willingness to help other democracies.

We get sucked in to thinking things are only a single issue, when things like this are a multifaceted event full of things that that are out to help the greater good as well as things that may be more self centered or self serving.

 

You say potato I say HIMARS, but what is the difference?

Edited by Laxtonto
Fuck you autocorrect - thanks DDD
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I cannot say the U.S. has escalated this. First, all our steps were calculated and proportional to serious Russian escalation. Second, the United States has not pursued revisionist aims but has only sought to return to the status quo ante. Finally, and most important, the stakes are completely asymmetrical.  A failure to increase support to Ukraine means Ukraine ceases to exist while “deescalating” gets us the same and also fractured Europe and our Alliance. Russia has always simply been able to return to its borders where it is secure.  
 

And this has been Putin’s biggest failure as a strategist.  He tried to bluff his way into making the West believe that Ukraine really is a core security interest and the struggle is existential.  He failed (though it was a good shot and many would have happily folded) because the idea is so clearly stupid.  
 

And this is why the annexation and mobilization are such hair-raising escalatory threats. Compare this nuclear blackmail to a game of chicken.  Clearly, with rational actors both cars swerve.  But what if you REALLY want to win? Well, you can throw the steering wheel out the window and make sure the other guy sees you do it. 
 

This is what Putin is trying to convince us he’s done with the annexations and it’s vital that we refuse to acknowledge it. 

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

7 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 

The problem is that any support in any form can at some level be viewed as an escalation from one side while the other views it as a counter to a previous escalation by the other side.

Outside of direct military assistance that is outlined either via treaty or blatantly disregarding international law, everything else is a varying shade of gray. So the real issue is not have X crossed the proverbial line and escalated the conflict, but instead what level of conflict are both sides willing to go and why are we doing it.
 

Yes, this is a war for freedom against an unjust invasion, foremost. But don’t delude ourselves that it isn’t also a proxy war to demonstrate us capabilities in a non-gorilla war style of engagement. This is a message to everyone regarding how much better our weapons and tactics really are in comparison to the Russian approach (cough cough here looking at you China). This is also a sales demo regarding the power of alliances with the west, the importance of the NATO nations staying current in the global arms tech race, and an open demonstration of the willingness to help other democracies.

We get sucked in to thinking things are only a single issue, when things like this are a multifaceted event full of things that that are out to help the greater good as well as things that may be more self centered or self serving.

 

You say potato I say HIMARS, but what is the difference?

Guerilla.

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

The US and NATO will do whatever it takes to insure a Ukrainian victory. Putin and Russia have made direct threats about not stopping at Ukraine. All of the countries to the east are NATO countries. Russia has to be stopped in Ukraine at all costs to keep from triggering an Article 5 situation leading tp WWIII. I'm not sure if Putin is contemplating a tactical nuke. If it is detonated close enough to a NATO country to contaminate it with fallout, it triggers Article 5. If he detonates one in eastern Ukraine, he risks contaminating part of Russia itself.

CHIEF

Edited by CHIEF
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, immamac said:

Except that instead of being money guys we are supplying them with technology and software licenses as well, meanwhile we own all that tech and software so we stop selling it to their main competitors and penalize anyone who tries to work around that. Oh and we are also sending an army of trainers to train staff and new hires all while covering the implementation cost of the complex system that allows you to compete with the incumbents. Oh and we are also licensing, for free, some extremely advanced technology that the other competitors don’t have. 

After all that we are also getting every other partner or integration to actually stop using any of the competitors even if it’s bad for them. 
 

to say the US hasn’t escalated this is hilarious and wrong, but we still aren’t directly involved technically speaking. 

You all are stating this wrong.  The US has not escalated this.  The US has escalated our support as Ukraine continues to fight for their freedom from invaders. 

Russia intentionally invaded another country to conquer and annex it.   Ukraine has been fighting this.   None of this has "escalated" at all since the start.  

So US support has increased (or escalated), but the conflict itself which Russia started....and which Russia could stop by leaving, is the same war of Russian attempted conquest and subjugation of Ukraine.

Russia keeps trying to "escalate" the stakes by threatening Nuclear blackmail, but they have been making those threats since they were initially stopped and had to pull back from Kijev.  So the Russian doctrine of "Escalate to Deescalate" has been  something they continue to push regardless of the level of support from the US or others.

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

16 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I don’t see it as US escalation, it is the US and our allies responding to the actions that Russia has taken. They invade, we sanction and provide weapons and training. They bomb a shelter we provide anti aircraft systems. They shell houses, we provide HIMARS. 
 

 

Fair point. Depends on how you define escalation. Is anything we do pure, unwarranted escalation? No. We respond to the opponent's escalation by coming up to their level (i.e., they go from 6 to 7, we got from 6 to 7. They go from 7 to 8, we go from 7 to 8. You can't deny that this meets some definition of "escalation of our level of involvement". But I can't argue with your point that we're not escalating unilaterally. 

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

35 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

Dude fucked around and found out. But even after realizing he's fighting for the fascists, he's not necessarily calling for an end to the war but for the cannon fodder to get better training for a fight with NATO. Thanks for posting. Interesting insight.

Also, folks shouldn't overlook that link to the Russian propaganda film he mentioned:

https://theconversation.com/how-solntsepyok-a-brutal-2021-propaganda-film-primed-russians-for-war-with-ukraine-185701

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

In all seriousness, I think this all ends with Russia de-nuked. Putin goes down, breakaway republics/regions gain independence, the west only removes sanctions after denuclearization, and post-Putin leadership has no choice but to agree.

This is the play. Two teams should be ready to go. The teams to buy the nukes and if necessary the teams to take the nukes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yeah, I cannot say the U.S. has escalated this. First, all our steps were calculated and proportional to serious Russian escalation. Second, the United States has not pursued revisionist aims but has only sought to return to the status quo ante. Finally, and most important, the stakes are completely asymmetrical.  A failure to increase support to Ukraine means Ukraine ceases to exist while “deescalating” gets us the same and also fractured Europe and our Alliance. Russia has always simply been able to return to its borders where it is secure.  
 

And this has been Putin’s biggest failure as a strategist.  He tried to bluff his way into making the West believe that Ukraine really is a core security interest and the struggle is existential.  He failed (though it was a good shot and many would have happily folded) because the idea is so clearly stupid.  
 

And this is why the annexation and mobilization are such hair-raising escalatory threats. Compare this nuclear blackmail to a game of chicken.  Clearly, with rational actors both cars swerve.  But what if you REALLY want to win? Well, you can throw the steering wheel out the window and make sure the other guy sees you do it. 
 

This is what Putin is trying to convince us he’s done with the annexations and it’s vital that we refuse to acknowledge it. 

We've basically answered a non-queen's gambit opening with a queen's gambit follow.  We didn't escalate, but we certainly utilized second-mover advantage by force.  

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

Well the use of a nuke would change the war. Probably freeze the lines for a time.  But Russia will have signed its death warrant, which may not be the deterrent it would to a rational actor.  
 

I think China has been trying to figure out an off-ramp from Russia and that would be an easy one.  Then they can March into Siberia.

 

 The losers would be Ukraine.  Gone from heroic defenders to senseless casualties in a very quick moment.  Because if they use one, they may use 20 or 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Well the use of a nuke would change the war. Probably freeze the lines for a time.  But Russia will have signed its death warrant, which may not be the deterrent it would to a rational actor.  
 

I think China has been trying to figure out an off-ramp from Russia and that would be an easy one.  Then they can March into Siberia.

 

 The losers would be Ukraine.  Gone from heroic defenders to senseless casualties in a very quick moment.  Because if they use one, they may use 20 or 25.

You can easily walk the nukes up to this

giphy.gif

 

because if russia uses one or several tactical low payload nukes and doesn’t get the response it seeks, it will just escalate further with larger ones and in more radical locations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

I agree with all of that.  The note I would add is I dont think the Afghan conflict went south for us. Losing one soul over there was too many, but 1,900 US service members in 20 years to hostile action is a lot lower than many thought going in, considering we were in a guerilla war. Gulf War 1, going over the burm, a buddy told me he was told "1 of 2", meaning when they went in, the CO's were told to expect 50% casualty rate going in initially.  Fast forward to Afghan, and we performed exceptionally well IMO. The exit was messy, that may be what you meant, if so , i agree,  but really there were few options w/o going all CR.  We wrecked shop on ISIS and the Taliban, something the RU army never could accomplish.  Our boys over there were nails all things considered.  Those people dont want peace, its not in their DNA.

Well said.  It annoys me to no end when people say "we lost in Afghanistan".  We didn't lose shit, other than the will to do what Russia is doing to Ukrainian civilians, which I wholeheartedly am happy we don't pursue any longer.  (and a couple hunnert billion of left platform equipment, which also pissed me off)

9 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

got damnt, take it to the cheating chess butt plug thread.

THey opened with Slav defense and we countered with Queen's gambit.  It's usually reverse.  In this case, it's not surprising.  

Edited by Trey3216
Edited because We also lost a bunch of equipment that needn't be lost.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

If not, they are in essence planning on trying to open up a new front with green conscripts and all it would do is put Belarus at risk of an overthrow if that group gets smashed. The real question is there are enough other troops in western Ukraine to pivot over as a blocking force early and if Belarus engages in the war what does that mean as far what the UKA is allowed to do as far as advancing into Belarus. Any form of incursion into Belrus would make Lukashenko in serious threat of a revolt.

I’m not worried about Belarus.  Russia can’t put any manned air support in the air over the approaches to Kyiv from Belarus, and Russia doesn’t have the wheeled logistics to do so either - they are struggling to keep their arty supplied in the eastern areas and Crimea.  As others have said, this is about freeing up “professional”/contract soldiers to go reinforce the struggling positions elsewhere.

And if Russia tried to build up in Belarus, then Kyiv makes a show at building up and going for Crimea, which Putin 100% cannot afford to lose.  Putin is a gambler, but he’s also scared shitless of COVID and assassinations.

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

3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

And don’t forget, the competitor is seeing a huge chunk of their workforce head for the exits because they want nothing to do with that shitshow.

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

51 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

I agree with all of that.  The note I would add is I dont think the Afghan conflict went south for us. Losing one soul over there was too many, but 1,900 US service members in 20 years to hostile action is a lot lower than many thought going in, considering we were in a guerilla war. Gulf War 1, going over the berm burm, a buddy told me he was told "1 of 2", meaning when they went in, the CO's were told to expect 50% casualty rate going in initially.  Fast forward to Afghan, and we performed exceptionally well IMO. The exit was messy, that may be what you meant, if so , i agree,  but really there were few options w/o going all CR.  We wrecked shop on ISIS and the Taliban, something the RU army never could accomplish.  Our boys over there were nails all things considered.  Those people dont want peace, its not in their DNA.

I believe the correct term is "gorilla war."

 

RIP Harambe

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
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...