Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hefeweizen said:

I’m feeling like there’s all of a sudden a lot of finding out.  I don’t think air strikes on our bases in Europe happen without nukes flying but that’s my read of US and NATO  doctrine. I think live fire on US or NATO troops by uniformed Russians isn’t happening.  They will back down.  And then go back to shenanigans.  I’d like to park a brigade in Ukraine but I’m not in charge.

Ok.  What about strikes against our carriers, from which we are launching air attacks against Russian targets?  If Russia comes in shooting, and we show up.....we just joined a shooting war.  We don't get to just pose and look tough and say "nobody would dare shoot at us."

Whether and how you join a war is up to you.  When and how to get OUT of that war is not entirely within your control.

There's a lot of cavalier talk in this thread about committing significant US resources and troops to shooting wars with Russia and China -- or more importantly, we'll be weak and pussies if we don't.  I am only challenging the proponents of entering a shooting war with either opponent to describe what they think will happen -- and to honestly include some of the reasonably likely escalations that while they hope WON'T happen, very well might.

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

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's a lot of cavalier talk in this thread about committing significant US resources and troops to shooting wars with Russia and China -- or more importantly, we'll be weak and pussies if we don't.  I am only challenging the proponents of entering a shooting war with either opponent to describe what they think will happen -- and to honestly include some of the reasonably likely escalations that while they hope WON'T happen, very well might.

I please point out the posts advocating committing significant resources to shooting wars with Russia and China over the Ukraine and where it was stated that we are weak and pussies it we don't.  However, if I was your family in Germany I wouldn't be so certain that we would go to war to defend them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

And  FWIW, I have at least a dozen family members in Germany scattered around.  They know Russia is the enemy.  And yes, they all love having the USA in their corner as all our allies do when the chips are down.

Yep.  That's the nature of our NATO relationship.  

I have an "exchange daughter" who I love like one of my own who is in the Norwegian air force right now.  She works security at one of their primary coastal bases.  When I've talked to her about what her job really is, she says, pretty seriously, "hunting Russians."  That's her job: searching for and responding to any potential Russian infiltration.  If shit starts, I mean really starts, she'll be in the thick of it.

And I see your optimistic scenario of how we can bluff, send in troops, and they'll back down.  But you know that if/when shooting has already started, it's not that easy.  So, evaluate some of the less-savory outcomes of a bellicose path here.  It's a chess match.  Let's game out all of the reasonably likely response moves and counter-moves.

This is a high-stakes game.  Tell me the different ways it could go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukraine's 2 big mistakes

1. giving up their nuclear weapons in '91.

2. not controlling their borders. Kiev has effectively not ruled their eastern border area with Russia for years. They have a hot civil war within their borders that they've been unable to win. I imagine Putin is tired of it and will soon send in troops to end the civil war by increasing Russia's borders.

Feb 21st or 22nd will be the invasion date. Day after the winter olympics end. Putin won't want his invasion to hurt the Soviets Russians participation since the ideal of the Olympics is supposed of peaceful competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 4:40 PM, Brisketexan said:

Or, you simply have to have a tiny bit of testicular fortitude.

We have a destroyer in the Med.  We are going to send it to the Black Sea.  Now, it can either make a courtesy stop in Odessa (in the Black Sea), OR, it can go through the Kerch strait to Berdyansk.  As to either destination, we trust that all international passages will be open to traffic.  We also trust that we can simply make a nice stop in Odessa, and there will be no need to practice our travel through international waters into the Sea of Azov.

azovsea.gif

Then send the destroyer.  Point that SOB right at the strait.  Putin will blink.  His balls aren't that big.  They just seem that way when everyone else's have atrophied.  You put a bully in his place by standing up to him.  You do so in a way that lets him save face (if he concocts some reason to re-open the strait, wonderful -- our guys make a nice stop in Odessa, turn around, and go home).  But you stand up to him.  Otherwise, the bully just gets bolder and bolder.  That's what's at stake.

For my original suggestion when this matter cropped up, see my suggestion above.  Make a strong move, but something WELL short of a commitment or movement of large amounts of forces.  I am far from suggesting that we just shrug our shoulders and move on - they make a move, we make a move.

As for posts suggesting war, or something close to it, or else we are a paper tiger, see the examples below.

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Do we really have a choice if we're going to say we honor our commitments ? 

 

58 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd like to think that would have some effect, but do you really think it will ?  China is watching, and taking notes.

 

50 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Then we might has well cede most of Europe and Asia to Russia and China and hope they go to war with each other before dividing up the Americas

 

36 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

We tell them "Hey that's not nice don't do it again".  When they get to Germany we tell them "Hey this time we really mean it".

 

26 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

It’s not we do go to war.  It’s having them believe we will.  Uncertainty is a great deterrent.  The US has also shown in Afghanistan (even though I think we shouldn’t have ever been there) that its commitment will waver.

 

Look, no one wants a world war.  But these are bad people who don’t give a shit about perception, treaties, or anything that isn’t backed by force.  If they think our backing is not solid, they’ll probe to find those limits.  When they’re done probing our anus may be prolapsed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an elegant solution here of partitioning Ukraine.  Basically give back to the Central European states what Stalin conquered in 1939-40--Poland gets back Galicia (including the city of Lviv); Slovakia gets back Carpatho-Ruthenia; Romania gets back Bukovina (and maybe Russia agrees to annexation of Moldova by Romania).

If Russia were to do this, it would split NATO.  Poland, Slovakia, and Romania would obviously not oppose the Russian invasion.  And, perhaps more to the point, you'd have NATO members who were co-conspirators in the aggression, limiting NATO's moral authority.

I suspect the Ukrainians might not see the elegance of this solution.  But if Putin were half as clever as Stalin, that's exactly what he'd do.

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

2 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

I’m feeling like there’s all of a sudden a lot of finding out.  I don’t think air strikes on our bases in Europe happen without nukes flying but that’s my read of US and NATO  doctrine. I think live fire on US or NATO troops by uniformed Russians isn’t happening.  They will back down.  And then go back to shenanigans.  I’d like to park a brigade in Ukraine but I’m not in charge.

2 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

It’s not we do go to war.  It’s having them believe we will.  Uncertainty is a great deterrent.

.....

Look, no one wants a world war.  But these are bad people who don’t give a shit about perception, treaties, or anything that isn’t backed by force.  If they think our backing is not solid, they’ll probe to find those limits.  When they’re done probing our anus may be prolapsed.

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

There's a lot of cavalier talk in this thread about committing significant US resources and troops to shooting wars with Russia and China -- or more importantly, we'll be weak and pussies if we don't.  I am only challenging the proponents of entering a shooting war with either opponent to describe what they think will happen -- and to honestly include some of the reasonably likely escalations that while they hope WON'T happen, very well might.

If nukes fly, then everybody's economy is going in the shitter as all trading between the associated countries stops, and embargoes/blockades/etc. go into effect, not to mention the damage from the nukes themselves.

So if it's going to economically nail everybody anyways, you don't have to go up to nukes - you just have to be willing to wage an instant economic war, and they have to know you are willing to do so.

Russia is able to handle its energy needs, but it imports a lot of food.  China imports even more food.  Both rely heavily on exports as well for their financial stability, especially China, but Russia as well. It would not be hard to bring either country to their knees, but the West and its allies in Asia have to be willing to take a hit to their economies.

Putin and Xi Jinping are not foolish.  Every action they order is based on them remaining in power.  Nukes flying means they've lost 100% control of the situation and puts their ability to remain in control of their countries in jeopardy (as nukes could damage the infrastructure and even kill off leadership needed for command control).

The West and its allies severing financial ties with either Russia or China also means that Putin or Xi Jinping have lost complete control, and it also jeopardizes their ability to remain in power/control of their countries, as if the economy starts shutting down and food and paychecks become an issue, that means millions/tens of millions will be in the streets (or hundreds of millions in the case of China).  All of the sudden, they will need the full resources and attention of their conventional military to remain in power.

Neither of those men have remained in power the way they have been without the ability to play a long game, and both are control freaks on some nature.  Nukes flying or total economic warfare takes their control away, and neither wants that.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If nukes fly, then everybody's economy is going in the shitter as all trading between the associated countries stops, and embargoes/blockades/etc. go into effect, not to mention the damage from the nukes themselves.

So if it's going to economically nail everybody anyways, you don't have to go up to nukes - you just have to be willing to wage an instant economic war, and they have to know you are willing to do so.

Russia is able to handle its energy needs, but it imports a lot of food.  China imports even more food.  Both rely heavily on exports as well for their financial stability, especially China, but Russia as well. It would not be hard to bring either country to their knees, but the West and its allies in Asia have to be willing to take a hit to their economies.

Putin and Xi Jinping are not foolish.  Every action they order is based on them remaining in power.  Nukes flying means they've lost 100% control of the situation and puts their ability to remain in control of their countries in jeopardy (as nukes could damage the infrastructure and even kill off leadership needed for command control).

The West and its allies severing financial ties with either Russia or China also means that Putin or Xi Jinping have lost complete control, and it also jeopardizes their ability to remain in power/control of their countries, as if the economy starts shutting down and food and paychecks become an issue, that means millions/tens of millions will be in the streets (or hundreds of millions in the case of China).  All of the sudden, they will need the full resources and attention of their conventional military to remain in power.

Neither of those men have remained in power the way they have been without the ability to play a long game, and both are control freaks on some nature.  Nukes flying or total economic warfare takes their control away, and neither wants that.

 

If an economic boycott can do it hell yeah, go for it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our strategic interests do not go as far as shooting weapons at the Russians.  Sucks for the Ukraine, sorry.  I think we have a broad coalition of support for "banhammer-level" sanctions on them if they get uppity though.  That won't fix the problem of course, but it's good just the same.

Re: Taiwan, I'm on board with defending them militarily.  I don't know the nuances of international diplomacy, but it seems we're more committed to their sovereignty.  That and they have manufacturing we depend on.  Lastly, their Military is rather formidable.  They can't turn the Chinese navy into driftwood or anything, but they can do serious damage.  Seems they have some good allies over there as well.  China starts shit and SK, Japan and Australia unholster their weapons and check brass.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that an invasion of the Ukraine would lead to NATO imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine to remove the Russian air attack. The key being to keep any NATO-Russian fighting in Ukraine airspace. The escalation fear would be if Russia fired any weapons at our planes from Russia. I don’t see NATO allow surface to air missiles coming over the border without retailiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hefeweizen said:

We don’t have the discipline.  Period.

We don't.  We have so much economic power over countries like China and to a lesser extent Russia, but it would hurt our population too much.

Although the pandemic sure shook a few things up and probably provided some good data/speculation on what a trading war might do.

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

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

There is an elegant solution here of partitioning Ukraine.  Basically give back to the Central European states what Stalin conquered in 1939-40--Poland gets back Galicia (including the city of Lviv); Slovakia gets back Carpatho-Ruthenia; Romania gets back Bukovina (and maybe Russia agrees to annexation of Moldova by Romania).

If Russia were to do this, it would split NATO.  Poland, Slovakia, and Romania would obviously not oppose the Russian invasion.  And, perhaps more to the point, you'd have NATO members who were co-conspirators in the aggression, limiting NATO's moral authority.

I suspect the Ukrainians might not see the elegance of this solution.  But if Putin were half as clever as Stalin, that's exactly what he'd do.

What are these nations you speak of? Poland? Slovakia? All these lands should belong to glorious Austro-Hungarian sphere. Long live Hapsburgs. Long live the double headed empire! 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrazilHorn said:

I just don’t see NATO stepping up to do anything if Russia invades. 
The US can posture but you want to talk an unpopular war? Then add it being against the Boomers literal childhood boogeyman in Russia? 
No one gives two shits about Ukraine in the US. 
 

Yep, now Taiwan on the other hand. That would come to blows, but this isn't even on a list of shits given. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be very high on the "list of shits given" because it is necessary for the stability of our relationships with our European allies. Putin claims Ukraine is former Russian territory and that attacks are coming out of Ukraine, so he'll invade. Then all the other former Soviet satellites are up for grabs.

Our biggest foreign policy misstep in the history of the United States is not realizing that we had the only other nuclear super power, at the time, absolutely on their knees and could have dismantled them in the early 90s. Russia lost the Cold War and Putin hasn't forgotten that. Putin has been nipping away at our edges for over a decade and the response has been appeasement. The argument is "well, he'll just stop at Ukraine." The argument 7 years ago was, "well, he'll just stop at Crimea."

This thing is a slow burn. South Ossetia wasn't seen as a problem because who cares about South Ossetia? Everyone ringing the alarm gets waived off, Putin stops there and all the people waiving the problem off take a victory lap. 6 years later, Crimea, rinse and repeat. 7 years later, here we are. Putin is patient and we are easily distracted. Bad combination.

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

My stepmother and stepsister are from the Ukraine, so they hang around other ex-pats and still have family back there (My father did the Russian bride thing many years ago). They're all worried about it. The Ukrainians themselves view themselves as modern Europeans. They've tried hard to turn away from the Slavic orbit and so there is a lot of bad blood there. I also have a few fellow veteran buddies who went to the Ukraine after the Euromaidan to help stand up a "Ministry of Veteran Affairs" which they patterned after our VA.

With all that being said, I suspect you're right, nobody without a direct connection probably cares, which is why we'll probably roll over for Putin again.

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

8 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

My stepmother and stepsister are from the Ukraine, so they hang around other ex-pats and still have family back there (My father did the Russian bride thing many years ago). They're all worried about it. The Ukrainians themselves view themselves as modern Europeans. They've tried hard to turn away from the Slavic orbit and so there is a lot of bad blood there. I also have a few fellow veteran buddies who went to the Ukraine after the Euromaidan to help stand up a "Ministry of Veteran Affairs" which they patterned after our VA.

With all that being said, I suspect you're right, nobody without a direct connection probably cares, which is why we'll probably roll over for Putin again.

That's not why. Politics plays a role as well. Everyone knows we aren't going to stand up against Russia or pretty much any other country in the east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

The fun really is going to be when we realize Ukraine and Taiwan is inter-connected. Best case, Putin agreed to a dry run for China to get a POV on the U.S. response. Worst (likely) case - Putin goes into Russia and China goes into Taiwan concurrently.

That is a scenario that's been gamed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MillerEP said:

My stepmother and stepsister are from the Ukraine, so they hang around other ex-pats and still have family back there (My father did the Russian bride thing many years ago). They're all worried about it. The Ukrainians themselves view themselves as modern Europeans. They've tried hard to turn away from the Slavic orbit and so there is a lot of bad blood there. I also have a few fellow veteran buddies who went to the Ukraine after the Euromaidan to help stand up a "Ministry of Veteran Affairs" which they patterned after our VA.

With all that being said, I suspect you're right, nobody without a direct connection probably cares, which is why we'll probably roll over for Putin again.

That's why I'm wondering how my statement that most people wouldn't care as much as what's in front of them, or even Taiwan is stupid in @hobbes2702 mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Very stupid

Tell me you aren't up to speed on the history and trends and current state of the semiconductor industry along with how the shortage, demand and forecast for chips is driving all the wealth-building innovation (DX initiatives, web3, industrial4.0, etc.) since about 2016 to the unforeseeable future, without telling me because you wanted to dunk on someone.

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

8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Then we cut off their food via two choke points. 

No doubt; just a very bad outcome for all involved which is why I think it won't come to a complete head. Nobody wants the financial markets to lose 50% of their value, not billionaire Americans, billionaire oligarchs or billionaire (and trillionaire in Russia's case) totalitarians.

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

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

Most of NATO, including Germany, doesn't want to get involved militarily with Ukraine. Whatever happens here is going to define the European landscape for the next decade and I'm not liking where it's heading.

We already sold out Ukraine for German interests and gave Russia leverage over Europe. The course seems plotted. And not too much deviation from the long historical norms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have sizable net worth, probably a good idea to park some cash in bonds or get liquid in savings for a while but still contribute and DCA if the market tanks.

Maybe I've been reading too much Ray Dalio this week. Or maybe others haven't read enough.

I really like his old saw,  “If you worry, you don’t have to worry. And if you don’t worry, you have to worry.”

Edited by MonkeyCigarette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

Most of NATO, including Germany, doesn't want to get involved militarily with Ukraine. Whatever happens here is going to define the European landscape for the next decade and I'm not liking where it's heading.

Yeah Germany has...experience...in eastern European war. It went poorly for them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bravo said:

Is the US supplying blankets or anti tank missiles this time? 

We have been supplying anti-tank missiles for the past 8 years.  The Ukrainian military is today a lot better equipped than it was in 2014.

It's also a lot better trained.  Over the past 8 years, they've been fighting with us in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So they're pretty well schooled in anti-insurgency, which is also a good way to learn insurgency tactics.

And that's where I would expect a Russian invasion to go.  Russia is going to gain a pretty speedy conventional victory, with its tanks rolling into Kyiv.  But then the real fun begins.  I fully expect the Ukrainian military to shift into an insurgency posture, and it has a lot of the right weaponry to do that.  This could be really difficult for Russia over the next several years.

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

  • immamac changed the title to Russia declares independence on behalf of the Ukraine so it can protect the Ukraine or something like that
  • immamac changed the title to Русский корабль - иди нахуй

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...