Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think we can divert a bit on Finland as its membership in NATO is a direct result of Russia’s war. It’s really hard to overstate what a L this is for Russia and Putin. Their membership represents the failure of over 70 years of careful Soviet/Russian statecraft. And it represents the firm closing of Russia’s window on the West. Beyond the obvious geography, this political development and the loss of Finland as a responsible Western state that had found accommodation with Russia is a strategic failure. This alone is just about enough to call Russia’s war against Ukraine a failure. 

Baltic Sea is now Lake NATO:

image.png.5ce45b0786e79c514365c0d50d506dc1.png

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

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

In the event of a full-scale war, how hard would it be for NATO to blockade Leningrad St Petersburg?

Blockade? 

You mean how quickly would it be taken and occupied?

Like within hours. 

This is checkmate and Putin knows it.

Edited by The Dog
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Well that’s frightening.  Putin doesn’t use the internet or a cell phone, is isolated and just gets information from reports from security services….   He himself has no clue what’s going on outside of Russia expect for what he hears from yes reports from his guys.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's 3 tweets showing an artillery attack on a Russian bunker, followed by two tanks firing on the position, followed by Rob Lee interpreting a commander saying at the start of the first video there is an artillery shortage in their area so they're crowdfunding UAVs to compensate:

 

 

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

Here's a podcast regularly featuring Micheal Kofman, analyst for the war in Ukraine.

He has a very balanced view, although he doesn't come to a lot of conclusions. Basically says a lot is riding on the upcoming offensive and what Ukraine is able to do afterwards, whether they make any progress, and if they do, are they able to follow up on it. 

He questions if we're at the apex of Western support for Ukraine. He doesn't come to any definitive conclusions. He's simply wondering if that's the case. He compares Bakhmut for the battle for Sievierodonetsk in the sense he wonders if Ukraine spent too many resources in both places. 

The one thing I've always had difficulty regarding Kofman is that he's very much an analyst, which isn't a bad thing. But if it can't be measured he's at a bit of a loss to comment on it. Which is good in its way. Because that can lead to rampant speculation, and while he's certainly capable of speculating, all of it tends to be grounded in what he can measure on some level, whether he has the data or not (for example, Russian troop effectiveness, or the availability of artillery shells on either side). I found it well worth my 28 minutes to listen to in any event.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/russia-will-soon-be-on-the-defense-but-then-what/?fbclid=IwAR1SZHDEEbHN-l_UAmtAu9onr-Yyh1yXWyUha3CR_DYV0yci2izZ4eTfwKM

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

19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think Russia is sensing a big counter-offensive is coming faster than we expected.  More of the batshittery they are trying to sell the Russian people on in regard to the war in Ukraine.  I don't think they sell it this way unless they think something bad is going to happen.

Fs4YotLaQAIo1uE?format=jpg&name=medium

Fs4YotNacAEr-UC?format=jpg&name=medium

I think we are days away.  It is interesting about them now looking to god and all that.  Language is always telling from a dictatorship.  Stalin referred to the Russian people as his children when he was running the purges and in general being the dick part of a dictator.  However, when it looked like the Germans may well over run them, suddenly they are his brothers and sisters.  I'm not sure we will see Putin do this, but the propagandists certainly seem to be preparing them for tough times ahead.  

Nothing terribly surprising from the former bodyguard, the information bubble, etc.  Putin has never been a worldly guy, which is strange considering a KGB operative.  He reportedly doesn't speak any other languages not even a little German, even though he spent a good deal of time in Germany during his career.  For all the belief that somehow Putin managed to have a sense for the pulse of much of the rest of the world, it's just not true, and it's never been true.  All he's ever known how to do is manage other thugs, theft, blackmail, and extortion.  You would think though, that all it takes is a couple of inside guys to poison him, and it's surprising this hasn't happened yet.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Here's a podcast regularly featuring Micheal Kofman, analyst for the war in Ukraine.

He has a very balanced view, although he doesn't come to a lot of conclusions. Basically says a lot is riding on the upcoming offensive and what Ukraine is able to do afterwards, whether they make any progress, and if they do, are they able to follow up on it. 

He questions if we're at the apex of Western support for Ukraine. He doesn't come to any definitive conclusions. He's simply wondering if that's the case. He compares Bakhmut for the battle for Sievierodonetsk in the sense he wonders if Ukraine spent too many resources in both places. 

The one thing I've always had difficulty regarding Kofman is that he's very much an analyst, which isn't a bad thing. But if it can't be measured he's at a bit of a loss to comment on it. Which is good in its way. Because that can lead to rampant speculation, and while he's certainly capable of speculating, all of it tends to be grounded in what he can measure on some level, whether he has the data or not (for example, Russian troop effectiveness, or the availability of artillery shells on either side). I found it well worth my 28 minutes to listen to in any event.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/russia-will-soon-be-on-the-defense-but-then-what/?fbclid=IwAR1SZHDEEbHN-l_UAmtAu9onr-Yyh1yXWyUha3CR_DYV0yci2izZ4eTfwKM

Kofman is an outstanding voice and thought leader on Russia and its military and doctrine and capabilities. But he’s not an analyst of Western or European foreign policy and he’s smart enough not to get out over his skis and talk about things he doesn’t know. That makes him more valuable, it’s not just a reluctance to talk on things that aren’t measurable, he is not someone who just opens his mouth about everything. 

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

51 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

historically?  very hard.

On paper that looks like a hard area to traverse as an invader and historically has not been a tradtional invasion route.   The Finns never made any serious effort during the Winter War to go for the city but they were not interested in it.   

The area north of St. Petersburg is fairly heavily wooded, with a lack of roads and infrastructure and is swampy in some areas with lots of lakes.  Between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, there are only 4 roads that cross the border on a 120 mile front.   The shortest route goes through Vyborg that is creates a pretty severe bottleneck.   It's only about 100 miles from the border to the city but even once you get past Vyborg there are still only 4-5 roads that can get you to St. Petersburg.   You're not driving through the plains of eastern Europe.   It's more like the lake country of Minnesota.  

But.

With the state of the Russian military, if for some reason we were at war, it would tie up a good chunk of whatever the Russians could scrape together to throw at the defense of the area.   It would be a resource suck for both sides but definitely hurting Putin more than us to defend the city.  However, I doubt that the Russians would have any reluctance to launch nukes if NATO troops were operating inside Russian borders.  Strategically, there's really no need to go after St. Petersburg.   It has the same problem on the south side.   There are only 5 majors roads leading out.  One of those goes NE to Murmansk (like 600 miles away.) Two others go W to the Estonian border (about 80 miles away on the shortest route.)  A fourth goes SW toward the Latvian border (about 200 miles).    Only 1 major road really connects the city with anything (the road to Moscow) and that's almost 600 miles away.   

 

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

We need to downgrade missions to the charge d’affaires level. Someone to call on the carpet and someone to call if we need a late night phone call to stop the nukes from going off. Putin should not have a presidential envoy to talk to like this. 
 
 

The Russians are reaching the level of BS that is now consistently one-liner unintentional comedy. Like Michael Scott lines. The US is significantly responsible for A crisis in Ukraine. Russia’s crisis. LOL
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one kind of got to me. It's not gory, but it shows just the miserable, grimy way Russian soldiers are pointlessly dying while wallowing in the mud and ice in their trenches. While all of this is for one man's ego, the masses are going along with it. What a stupid waste of lives.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one kind of got to me. It's not gory, but it shows just the miserable, grimy way Russian soldiers are pointlessly dying while wallowing in the mud and ice in their trenches. While all of this is for one man's ego, the masses are going along with it. What a stupid waste of lives.
 

Yeah that one is rough. Wet, cold, filthy, no escape.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

On paper that looks like a hard area to traverse as an invader and historically has not been a tradtional invasion route.   The Finns never made any serious effort during the Winter War to go for the city but they were not interested in it.   

The area north of St. Petersburg is fairly heavily wooded, with a lack of roads and infrastructure and is swampy in some areas with lots of lakes.  Between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, there are only 4 roads that cross the border on a 120 mile front.   The shortest route goes through Vyborg that is creates a pretty severe bottleneck.   It's only about 100 miles from the border to the city but even once you get past Vyborg there are still only 4-5 roads that can get you to St. Petersburg.   You're not driving through the plains of eastern Europe.   It's more like the lake country of Minnesota.  

But.

With the state of the Russian military, if for some reason we were at war, it would tie up a good chunk of whatever the Russians could scrape together to throw at the defense of the area.   It would be a resource suck for both sides but definitely hurting Putin more than us to defend the city.  However, I doubt that the Russians would have any reluctance to launch nukes if NATO troops were operating inside Russian borders.  Strategically, there's really no need to go after St. Petersburg.   It has the same problem on the south side.   There are only 5 majors roads leading out.  One of those goes NE to Murmansk (like 600 miles away.) Two others go W to the Estonian border (about 80 miles away on the shortest route.)  A fourth goes SW toward the Latvian border (about 200 miles).    Only 1 major road really connects the city with anything (the road to Moscow) and that's almost 600 miles away.   

 

I was thinking more of just a naval blockade. Still though.  Thanks.

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

21 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

I wonder if we’re sending cluster munitions for the offensive. Seems like those would be of immense help. We’re not going to use them ever.

Seems like the ideal warhead type to counter embedded trenches but that also implies a healthy air fleet to deliver such munitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

I was thinking more of just a naval blockade. Still though.  Thanks.

It would not be technically difficult to bottle up the Russians in the Gulf of Finland. The Germans and Finns used mines and anti-sub nets, along with their navies to do it in World War II extremely effectively. 
 

It would be a political and not military question, as it’s hard to see any sort of blockade of a Russian port by NATO NOT leading to a full-scale war and nuclear exchanges. 

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

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

I was thinking more of just a naval blockade. Still though.  Thanks.

Well, there's really no need for that either.   Their Baltic Fleet is based out of Kaliningrad and they have a very sparse naval presence in St. Pete.   I get why the Russians have kept Kaliningrad from a strategic view but it's a bitch to defend long-term.   The Russians would have to make a mad dash across Belarus and the Baltics to resupply and relieve it.   And we know now how effective they are at that.    Obviously, any decent relief column would already be spotted coming through Belarus and since those chuckleheads would probably have declared fealty to Russia, I would assume we'd be hitting the column(s) before they ever left Belarus. 

 

They have a similar problem to the St. Pete one...   The most direct route only has one main road coming from the east unless they did something stupid like trying to come in from the SE through Poland.    I would hope that Lithuania and Poland have a shit ton of soldiers trained up on anti-tank/anti-vehicle weapons.  Plus we know NATO should have air superiority fairly quickly.  

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

21 minutes ago, Handcruser said:


I thought we could use atacms delivery systems or some shit.

If I've learned one thing from this thread, it's that HIMARS and ATACMS delivery systems are the same thing, it's just a different missile and configuration. But we've already put a governor on the HIMARS we have sent them. 

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

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

If I've learned one thing from this thread, it's that HIMARS and ATACMS delivery systems are the same thing, it's just a different missile and configuration. But we've already put a governor on the HIMARS we have sent them. 

Chill Out Desantis GIF by GIPHY News

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 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...