Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

I believe on that post besides the Patriot damage, I referenced the Western Ukrainian ammo depot strike being blown off as a nothingburger, old shells. We won’t ever know that answer. Also referenced Bakhmut falling and the rationalization here being that now the Ukrainians can collapse on the flanks. TBD there. 
 

So, this was in Politico this morning. 
 

This is interesting coming a couple days after Zelensky said counteroffensive was being delayed until they acquired more weapons.

 

“It’s a scenario that may prove the most realistic long-term outcome given that neither Kyiv nor Moscow appear inclined to ever admit defeat. It’s also becoming increasingly likely amid the growing sense within the administration that an upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive won’t deal a mortal blow to Russia.”

They say they’re planning for all contingencies but it’s pretty clear that you write this story to float the idea out there. Especially to the hardcore supporters. The beginning of letting them down easy?
 

No one is winning.  A stalemate, as I said earlier. 

If you think about it, not the worst outcome considering where we stand. Ukraine is allowed to regroup and rearm. Russia gets a portion of Ukraine that they’ve blown to bits anyway. Woohoo. Then you let the sanctions work as Russia is an international pariah. In a year or two their economy and industrial capacity is wrecked They’re basically a bigger North Korea. Putin can sell as a win. We back away from possible nuclear conflict. Things settle down. Anyway, flame away. 

Took you a whole day to return to the thread you chose to Peace Out from, and a day and a half to return exactly to the company line. Tell us more how “increasingly likely” Ukraine can’t strike a mortal blow to Russia. Same shit, 24 hours later. It takes a really low IQ to be this oblivious. 
 

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

You forgot the part where Russia is allowed to regroup and rearm. You also forgot the part where Russia repeatedly says it will not stop until it re-claims the rest of Ukraine and the Baltics.  And you somehow think that the threat of nuclear war is reduced, when Russia threatens nuclear war for every slight against its aggressive attempts to recolonize former Soviet countries.  

You are also trying to sell the concept that the world will still support the same level of sanctions when there is no war against Ukraine - with Ukraine, accepting the new territorial borders.

You do not want Ukraine to win because your team, Team Trump and Team Tucker, are pro-Russia. Everything else you say is just Russian talking points and bullshit obfuscation.

Not to forget Russia would be securing warm water ports and natural resources. Ukraine shouldn’t care about that shit right?

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

2 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

No I said maybe Putin could sell it as a win. 
 

The talking points from a Politico article?

This is a tortured, nonsensical analogy. 
 

Pretty sure I’ve never cited a Zero Hedge piece because it’s a Russian media outlet. I’ve shared their tweets with straight economic data and no editorializing just to trigger people like yourself. 

Thanks for admitting you’ve been trolling the entire time. I guess that’s better than you being a true believer. Although I’m still not convinced you aren't. 

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

12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Thanks for admitting you’ve been trolling the entire time. I guess that’s better than you being a true believer. Although I’m still not convinced you aren't. 

Our boy already did. 

Quote

I’ve shared their tweets with straight economic data and no editorializing just to trigger people like yourself. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

No I said maybe Putin could sell it as a win. 
 

The talking points from a Politico article?

This is a tortured, nonsensical analogy. 
 

Pretty sure I’ve never cited a Zero Hedge piece because it’s a Russian media outlet. I’ve shared their tweets with straight economic data and no editorializing just to trigger people like yourself. 

Goddamn you are a dumb son of a bitch. Post less.

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

26 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Took you a whole day to return to the thread you chose to Peace Out from, and a day and a half to return exactly to the company line. Tell us more how “increasingly likely” Ukraine can’t strike a mortal blow to Russia. Same shit, 24 hours later. It takes a really low IQ to be this oblivious. 

I was called out for being wrong on a point and I acknowledged it. That’s why I posted.

 

Then I shared a MSM post that cited government sources that is warning that Ukraine can’t “strike a mortal blow”. 
 
That’s it. 

  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, statsman said:

 I’m told the US has a lot of Hawks (less capable than PAC) sitting around, aging. We need to get them to Ukraine. 

image.thumb.jpeg.cd38a9ff16882447ba41312eb638d8cf.jpeg

This is from ~ 1960, Clark AFB in the Philippines. Me in the red hat.

That Hawk looks good to go; good thing they made 'em before they started using expiration dates. 🙂

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

8 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

I gotta say, I just really don't understand the push for F-16s.  Please explain it to me.  ... But it doesn't seem to fill a niche that they need right now and it seems super resource intensive.  In other words, they get get a bigger bang for their buck out of other systems.  It's a head scratcher to me. Unless they want to reach out and touch some Bears out over the sea.  

"Secretary of State Sidney Owens: We've come up with another alternative.
Becker: We'll counterforce. A conventional attack on the Russian air base where the carrier attack originated.
Secretary of State Sidney Owens: It's what we're looking for. A measured respones.
Admiral Pollack: Non-nuclear.
President Robert Fowler: Is it strong enough?
Admiral Pollack: Smart bombs and F-16s. Pretty God damn strong.
"

Perhaps you answered your own question, to "reach out and touch" something.

 

 

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

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Honestly, Putin was a lot less damaging when he was just trying to rob the system and grab a bunch of money. It was when he started thinking about legacy that he really became the menace he is. 

I believe Clinton when he says he knew from the second he met Putin he knew he was a piece of shit.

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

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

Honestly, Putin was a lot less damaging when he was just trying to rob the system and grab a bunch of money. It was when he started thinking about legacy that he really became the menace he is. 

I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.  

This is who Putin is, this is who he has always been.  

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

6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou. 

Your comment made me pull this scene up and watch it. Margie has the US flag on her right arm flying where it looks “normal.” Shouldn’t it be the other way — blue field top right?  Or is that just a military thing?

 

image.jpeg.87b9e879cf00045453f4e0669ab3d86a.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

CFNM is a genre

To prevent anyone from going down any rabbit holes they would later regret:

What Does 'CFMN' Mean? | Acronyms by Dictionary.com

CFMN

WHAT DOES CFMN MEAN?

CFMN is an acronym with two usages, both relating to sexuality: come fuck me now, and clothed females, naked male. The latter is a kink, or practice, in the BDSM community.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, PTINS said:

image.thumb.jpeg.cd38a9ff16882447ba41312eb638d8cf.jpeg

This is from ~ 1960, Clark AFB in the Philippines. Me in the red hat.

That Hawk looks good to go; good thing they made 'em before they started using expiration dates. 🙂

I realize some people get upset when the thread veers off in any way, but if you're so inclined I'd love to hear the story of how that photo came to be. 

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

34 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.  

This is who Putin is, this is who he has always been.  

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, so I’ll drop it after this explanation. 
 
All dictators suck. A dictator that is just trying to enrich himself will steal from you, rough you up, maybe even kill you, but…only if it gets him more money. 
 
A dictator trying to change the system, establish legacy, address generational grievances- that’s the guy who will start wars and get millions killed. Putin always sucked, always disregarded rights and liberties, always murdered with impunity. Now, though, he’s trying for a place in the history books and is wrecking two countries. 
 
It’s like Cambodia in the mid ‘70s. The US backed predecessors to Pol Pot were crooks and authoritarians. Pol Pot was a Marxist crusader focused on social transformation. Who was worse?

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

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, so I’ll drop it after this explanation. 
 
All dictators suck. A dictator that is just trying to enrich himself will steal from you, rough you up, maybe even kill you, but…only if it gets him more money. 
 
A dictator trying to change the system, establish legacy, address generational grievances- that’s the guy who will start wars and get millions killed. Putin always sucked, always disregarded rights and liberties, always murdered with impunity. Now, though, he’s trying for a place in the history books and is wrecking two countries. 
 
It’s like Cambodia in the mid ‘70s. The US backed predecessors to Pol Pot were crooks and authoritarians. Pol Pot was a Marxist crusader focused on social transformation. Who was worse?

And now I'm listening to holiday in Cambodia 

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

20 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, so I’ll drop it after this explanation. 
 
All dictators suck. A dictator that is just trying to enrich himself will steal from you, rough you up, maybe even kill you, but…only if it gets him more money. 
 
A dictator trying to change the system, establish legacy, address generational grievances- that’s the guy who will start wars and get millions killed. Putin always sucked, always disregarded rights and liberties, always murdered with impunity. Now, though, he’s trying for a place in the history books and is wrecking two countries. 
 
It’s like Cambodia in the mid ‘70s. The US backed predecessors to Pol Pot were crooks and authoritarians. Pol Pot was a Marxist crusader focused on social transformation. Who was worse?

I think what you are missing is that Ukraine is not the first legacy building war Putin engaged in.  He has been doing this since he got in power.  This is just bigger, we notice it more and we are engaging to try and stop it.

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

11 minutes ago, ABSR said:

I think what you are missing is that Ukraine is not the first legacy building war Putin engaged in.  He has been doing this since he got in power.  This is just bigger, we notice it more and we are engaging to try and stop it.

Only because Ukraine hit back, and unexpectedly knocked the supposed champ to the mat in the first five seconds of the bout. Even then, it took a long time for us to do the right thing. Still not sure we're doing enough.

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

4 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, so I’ll drop it after this explanation. 
 
All dictators suck. A dictator that is just trying to enrich himself will steal from you, rough you up, maybe even kill you, but…only if it gets him more money. 
 
A dictator trying to change the system, establish legacy, address generational grievances- that’s the guy who will start wars and get millions killed. Putin always sucked, always disregarded rights and liberties, always murdered with impunity. Now, though, he’s trying for a place in the history books and is wrecking two countries. 
 
It’s like Cambodia in the mid ‘70s. The US backed predecessors to Pol Pot were crooks and authoritarians. Pol Pot was a Marxist crusader focused on social transformation. Who was worse?

 

Seriously? The fucking marxist. Killing fields much?

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

I don’t want to sidetrack the thread, so I’ll drop it after this explanation. 
 
All dictators suck. A dictator that is just trying to enrich himself will steal from you, rough you up, maybe even kill you, but…only if it gets him more money. 
 
A dictator trying to change the system, establish legacy, address generational grievances- that’s the guy who will start wars and get millions killed. Putin always sucked, always disregarded rights and liberties, always murdered with impunity. Now, though, he’s trying for a place in the history books and is wrecking two countries. 
 
It’s like Cambodia in the mid ‘70s. The US backed predecessors to Pol Pot were crooks and authoritarians. Pol Pot was a Marxist crusader focused on social transformation. Who was worse?

WTF? I’m gonna go out on that limb and vote for the commie dictator that oversaw the genocide of 2 million locals. (Like a quarter of the population.) Yea, that will certainly “change the system.”
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ABSR said:

I think what you are missing is that Ukraine is not the first legacy building war Putin engaged in.  He has been doing this since he got in power.  This is just bigger, we notice it more and we are engaging to try and stop it.

Ok, that’s fair 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-races-to-forge-new-army-ahead-of-offensive-aec3a1f2?st=lqyvf5b8v398x88&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink

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

3 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Seriously? The fucking marxist. Killing fields much?

Yeah, that’s the point. 
NYT lead columnist Anthony Lewis opined in the mid 70’s- “We don’t know much about the Khmer Rouge, but it’s hard to imagine them being worse than the current US-backed government of Cambodia.”

That didn’t age well. As noted, they killed 1/4 of the population in about six years. 

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

32 minutes ago, statsman said:

Yeah, that’s the point. 
NYT lead columnist Anthony Lewis opined in the mid 70’s- “We don’t know much about the Khmer Rouge, but it’s hard to imagine them being worse than the current US-backed government of Cambodia.”

That didn’t age well. As noted, they killed 1/4 of the population in about six years. 

Americans often suffer from a failure of imagination when it comes to “how much worse can it be?”

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

55 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There’s nothing inherently wrong with pondering the likelihood of a war that eventually exhausts itself kinetically and that leaves huge unresolved questions.  Putin has shown a penchant for freezing conflicts and Ukraine and a Russia are not going to have endless will or ability to engage in heavy combat. This is why upcoming months are so important to set the stage. 
 

It’s the framing of it as a stalemate or some kind of partial win for Putin/defeat for Allies that is obtuse. The facts are that Russia achieved almost none of their stated aims, they have wrecked their military for easily a decade to come, they have been isolated from prior preferred economic and trade partners, and they have become more dependent on a smaller set of “Allies.”  They’ve paid a tremendously heavy price for basically Mariupol and some coastal real estate and likely would not have launched the war in hindsight. 
 

Ukraine had paid a dear cost in treasure and blood and if it hopes to recover, is dependent on massive investment from Western partners (likely) and serious internal reforms (there’s a path but uncertain). The people they lost in a nation that was shrinking before the war cannot be replaced and they can only hope to lure refugees home. Their future stability will also depend on what sort of security guarantees and framework Western Allies are willing to give, which is hard to predict so long as the East and Crimea remain unresolved. 
 

Internally— I can guarantee that Ukrainians are discussing the realities and complexities of actually reintegrating the East/Crimea even if they do win. These are not the same regions they lost in 2014. Not the same people. Ukraine has been absent for almost nine years and the population is deeply scarred. There will be hard discussions about how much they REALLY want to push to have them back, especially as Russia has and will try to insert poison pill demands as part of any peace concessions. And at this point, it will be hard for Russia to climb down from the stance that “they’re Russia, we annexed them.” 
 

So yes, it’s hard to see a clear “winner” emerging. The goal is to get Ukraine into the most favorable position possible and to dictate as much as they can the terms of any peace— once they decide that they’re ready for it and that there’s nothing more to be gained by fighting it out. On our side, this is not a real burden and we are capable of doing even much more without really breaking a sweat which is why it’s so disingenuous to play political games around it. 

The crazy thing to me is, if Putin had done nothing, the west likely would not have truly galvanized support for Ukraine ‘starting’ a conflict to take back Crimea and/or the Donbas.  Instead, here we are.  Mind bottling stupid decision.  

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 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...