Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

They are old, no longer in production, and kept alive by expensive modernization for existing inventory. The replacement, the Precision Strike Missile, is just now entering service. I suspect our reluctance to provide it stems partly from lack of ability to replace at scale (yet), partly due to lack of available modernized missiles, partly due to the cost of missile relative to something like a GMLRS rocket (ATACMS is ~8x-10x more expensive), and maybe partly a concern for how effective (or lack there of) they would be. I'm sure we also have concerns about how they would be used, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is just an easy excuse to hide the real reasons. 

Yeah, that's more or less basically reasonable, except for one thing: Do we have any near-term plans to use them? Because I think Ukraine might, and might get better use of 'em.

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

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

They are old, no longer in production, and kept alive by expensive modernization for existing inventory. The replacement, the Precision Strike Missile, is just now entering service. I suspect our reluctance to provide it stems partly from lack of ability to replace at scale (yet), partly due to lack of available modernized missiles, partly due to the cost of missile relative to something like a GMLRS rocket (ATACMS is ~8x-10x more expensive), and maybe partly a concern for how effective (or lack there of) they would be. I'm sure we also have concerns about how they would be used, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is just an easy excuse to hide the real reasons. 

Haven’t we read several times that the US also put a distance governor on our HIMARS in Ukraine? For the same reasons of striking in Russia? If Im remembering correctly, why don’t we just remove those governors on HIMARS? How far does that get them? 
 

Or am I making this shit up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Haven’t we read several times that the US also put a distance governor on our HIMARS in Ukraine? For the same reasons of striking in Russia? If Im remembering correctly, why don’t we just remove those governors on HIMARS? How far does that get them? 
 

Or am I making this shit up?

My vague and slightly less-reliable recollection is that we didn't give them the long-range ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

My vague and slightly less-reliable recollection is that we didn't give them the long-range ammo.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3762042-us-secretly-modified-himars-for-ukraine-to-prevent-kyiv-from-shooting-long-range-missiles-into-russia/
 

it’s vague. They say we “modified” them, which implies something other than just not giving ammo. Also, HIMARS systems also can launch ATACMS, or whatever they’re called, so the “not providing ammo” seems kinda “duh” in this scenario. 
 

it’s all vague, but it seems like there is something here. But maybe it’s another 30 km? Maybe 50. Maybe nothing. Maybe we go fuck ourselves. 

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

I mean, I'm not in charge. Which is a good thing, because I'd have hit the big red button and made Moscow glow in the dark by now. Which is not the right thing to do.

The right thing to do is to send Ukraine all kinds of weapons and training and maybe tell Poland that if they were to send troops towards Moscow we would look the other way and...

actually that's probably not smart either, but it would be fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm not in charge. Which is a good thing, because I'd have hit the big red button and made Moscow glow in the dark by now. Which is not the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is to send Ukraine all kinds of weapons and training and maybe tell Poland that if they were to send troops towards Moscow we would look the other way and...
actually that's probably not smart either, but it would be fun

We need to give them the tools to obliterate all Russian air defense systems, in country or not.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

They are old, no longer in production, and kept alive by expensive modernization for existing inventory. The replacement, the Precision Strike Missile, is just now entering service. I suspect our reluctance to provide it stems partly from lack of ability to replace at scale (yet), partly due to lack of available modernized missiles, partly due to the cost of missile relative to something like a GMLRS rocket (ATACMS is ~8x-10x more expensive), and maybe partly a concern for how effective (or lack there of) they would be. I'm sure we also have concerns about how they would be used, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is just an easy excuse to hide the real reasons. 

Kasparov says it is because "Tragically, influences in the Biden White House also seem to want this. Sullivan, Burns, Kerry, treating this like the Cold War where the evil they know is better than the uncertainty of victory, even if it means undermining the counteroffensive against a war criminal regime".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3762042-us-secretly-modified-himars-for-ukraine-to-prevent-kyiv-from-shooting-long-range-missiles-into-russia/
 

it’s vague. They say we “modified” them, which implies something other than just not giving ammo. Also, HIMARS systems also can launch ATACMS, or whatever they’re called, so the “not providing ammo” seems kinda “duh” in this scenario. 
 

it’s all vague, but it seems like there is something here. But maybe it’s another 30 km? Maybe 50. Maybe nothing. Maybe we go fuck ourselves. 

My understanding was the modification prevented those systems from firing ATACMS. I'm not aware of any limitations associated with other ammunition like GMLRS, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were essentially GPS locked out of targets in Russia. A general range reduction on standard GMLRS rockets wouldn't make sense given our provision of the GLSDB in order to provide a greater range strike than GMLRS. 

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

7 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I still can’t understand why we aren’t providing ATACMS unless some of the reports I read are accurate, that we don’t have enough to give away.  I understand the original excuse of distance and non-escalation but shit man, smoke’em if you got’em.  

 

6 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

They are old, no longer in production, and kept alive by expensive modernization for existing inventory. The replacement, the Precision Strike Missile, is just now entering service. I suspect our reluctance to provide it stems partly from lack of ability to replace at scale (yet), partly due to lack of available modernized missiles, partly due to the cost of missile relative to something like a GMLRS rocket (ATACMS is ~8x-10x more expensive), and maybe partly a concern for how effective (or lack there of) they would be. I'm sure we also have concerns about how they would be used, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is just an easy excuse to hide the real reasons. 

 

But we can sell them to Morocco?

 

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/04/us-approves-524-million-himars-artillery-sale-morocco

 

This is Bullshit. The white house is a bunch of self-deterring pussies.

Edited by MagicSoccerSpray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went in the Estonian orthodox cathedral…they are under the Moscow patriarch (so, psychotic warmonger fuckhead). Oh, and they are SO persecuted (not bombed to oblivion, so STFU). We went in, and I used google to translate their message. As we looked around, I said in a louder than appropriate voice “let’s get the fuck out of this fucking place.”

5b69728e2d7c2de89c28a2f6993f3e92.jpg
81a8c73e296cf6231b521cde14ed3fef.png

Who endures the prayer, blows involuntary temptation?

GROOMERS!!
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

 

But we can sell them to Morocco?

 

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/04/us-approves-524-million-himars-artillery-sale-morocco

 

This is Bullshit. The white house is a bunch of self-deterring pussies.

Agreeing to sell them HIMARS doesn't mean they're getting delivered anytime soon. 

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

Wow.  And China made sure and publicly confirmed it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/europe/xi-jinping-zelensky-phone-call-intl/index.html

Quote

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke Wednesday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Moscow’s most important diplomatic partner, in the first phone call between the two leaders since the start of Russia’s invasion.

“I had a long and meaningful phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. I believe that this call, as well as the appointment of Ukraine’s ambassador to China, will give a powerful impetus to the development of our bilateral relations,” Zelensky said.

Quote

Andrii Yermak, head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office, described the phone call as “an important dialogue” in a Telegram post Wednesday.

Chinese state broadcaster CCTV also reported the call, during which Xi confirmed that that an envoy would travel to Ukraine and other countries to help conduct “in-depth communication” with all parties for a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.

Quote

In a briefing on Wednesday, China’s Foreign Ministry said its envoy to Ukraine will be Li Hui, Special Representative of the Chinese Government on Eurasian Affairs. Li is the former Chinese ambassador to Russia, who served in the post from 2009 to 2019.

The ministry did not provide further details as to when Li would make the trip and which other countries he would be visiting.

Edit: It's a big deal, I think, because this could have easily been pushed down the chain to some lower-level lacky (maybe one of the Chinese EU diplomats), but it was actually Xi, and Chinese state media confirmed it.

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

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Wow.  And China made sure and publicly confirmed it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/europe/xi-jinping-zelensky-phone-call-intl/index.html

Edit: It's a big deal, I think, because this could have easily been pushed down the chain to some lower-level lacky (maybe one of the Chinese EU diplomats), but it was actually Xi, and Chinese state media confirmed it.

I am curious if this is a sign that Xi doesn't want to get stuck backing the losing side or is this just theater so that China can keep pushing the peacemaker image on the world stage to help curry favor in places like Africa,  the ME, and Eastern Europe?

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

2 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

I am curious if this is a sign that Xi doesn't want to get stuck backing the losing side or is this just theater so that China can keep pushing the peacemaker image on the world stage to help curry favor in places like Africa,  the ME, and Eastern Europe?

It could simply be smoothing over ruffled feathers after the Chinese ambassador to France pissed off a shitload of countries with his comments this week about former Soviet states, but these calls probably don't happen spontaneously.

I'm wondering if it's tied to Russia's economic picture starting to come into focus, along with the West continuing to support Ukraine and Ukraine going on the offensive here and there and Russia being unable to dictate the tempo of the war.  And more countries are starting to side with Ukraine as well - Egypt is a major player that China has courted in the past.

And then there's India's comments about not wanting to go near Western sanctions for their dealings with Russia.  There's a lot going on here, but for it to be Xi is very interesting.

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

33 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

I am curious if this is a sign that Xi doesn't want to get stuck backing the losing side or is this just theater so that China can keep pushing the peacemaker image on the world stage to help curry favor in places like Africa,  the ME, and Eastern Europe?

giphy.gif

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

These numbers are BAD... And they are the sanitized numbers provided by the FSB to show the best-case scenario. Once they people start digging into them, they are going to really highlight how bad the economic state of Russia really is.
Most likely the true money crunch won't really be felt until the Fall or Winter, but with how much the everyday Russian is supported by the central government, at some point there will be a major degradation in goods and services. The problem with this simplified view is that payment of troops and other internal services is "easily" fixed by just printing more rubles. Without an external trade mechanism to punish the inflationary measure of flooding Russia with more rubles, there is no real short-term impact from a lack of revenue generation. Where this becomes a disaster is China is about to feast on any and all exports and when the war is over there most likely will be a huge inflationary spike that will crush the everyday Russian. So we are now looking at the slow degradation of goods entering the market itself and those hardships wont really become impactful until the weather turns cold and there isnt enough food or heat.
Where this gets curious is if they flood the market with Rubles internally, the value of the closeted funds by the various Oligarchs (which are in essence locked on the international stage but can be borrowed against in a secondary manner) is going to plunge. So while they can print rubles to pay everyone, it makes the ruling class that much poorer and even the blackmarket exchange of Rubles is going to crater.

Won’t they just price fix it and use their own natural resources to heat/feed the population?

After the war, it seems like it would be a good opportunity to invest but how? Ukraine is going to have many construction companies making bids, and companies specializing in UXO work will be busy there. What else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious if this is a sign that Xi doesn't want to get stuck backing the losing side or is this just theater so that China can keep pushing the peacemaker image on the world stage to help curry favor in places like Africa,  the ME, and Eastern Europe?

I was thinking that China is going to be asking for contracts to rebuild Ukraine.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Won’t they just price fix it and use their own natural resources to heat/feed the population?

After the war, it seems like it would be a good opportunity to invest but how? Ukraine is going to have many construction companies making bids, and companies specializing in UXO work will be busy there. What else?

They can price fix but what will they be able to sell to their people?   All of those confiscated toilets and microwaves?

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

36 minutes ago, mbtex said:

If they're legit and the proceeds go to Ukraine, I'm very interested

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

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...