Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

We would be balls to the wall nuclear now if it wasn't for the little incident at Fukushima.  Obama was pushing it.  Green peace said that was the way to go.  All the NIMBY people were quiet.  Oil prices were at a high.  Then the fucking Nips didnt move their diesels after many lessons learned about coastal flooding and raised diesel generators

Racism aside, 4th gen nuclear reactors have much better safety mechanisms and passive safety than Fukushima's gen II reactor. We just haven't built any new reactors in meaningful numbers since Chernobyl. I'm really optimistic for modern nuclear tech, it's our best carbon-neutral/negative energy source available.

It's still just fucking nuts to me how opposed the German people (apparently) are to nuclear power. It's an unusually emotional position for them to stake out

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

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Far be it for me to contradict any of you who're on the ground in Europe about European sentiments toward Ukraine, but this recent poll kind of tells a different picture. Three-quarters are on Ukraine's side and a full quarter are willing to support Ukraine with military intervention in a conflict with Russia. Holy shit, that's a lot higher than I would've expected. 

image.png.982d1688053ae50bd4042ad06290655d.png

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-favor-defense-ukraine-diplomacy-poll/

Wish they had done the Turks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Far be it for me to contradict any of you who're on the ground in Europe about European sentiments toward Ukraine, but this recent poll kind of tells a different picture. Three-quarters are on Ukraine's side and a full quarter are willing to support Ukraine with military intervention in a conflict with Russia. Holy shit, that's a lot higher than I would've expected. 

image.png.982d1688053ae50bd4042ad06290655d.png

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-favor-defense-ukraine-diplomacy-poll/

It shouldn't surprise once you realize that when a European hears "military action," he assumes the military action will be undertaken by the United States, not his his own country.  So yeah--plenty of Europeans are willing to spill American blood and spend American treasure to defend Ukraine militarily.  But how many are willing to spend their own?  It's probably in the single digits.

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

43 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is it exactly correct. First- Russia remains fully capable of launching anything from a full to limited attack within hours.  Nothing about their force posture has changed.

Second, @bolverk accurately points out that this crisis was created by Russia in response to nothing.  No vote on NATO for Ukraine on the horizon or even talk of one. No new weapons systems deployed to Ukraine. No new buildups on the eastern wing of NATO.  Biden had climbed down on NS2.  Ukraine was not prepping an assault on Donbas. 
 

To geek out on international relations, a state creating a crisis is either looking to change or preserve the status quo. Given that no one in Ukraine or the West was threatening the status quo— Russia wanted to change it. 
 

So let’s go to the rare bit of candor in the Lavrov-Putin “give diplomacy a chance” tv appearance.  Lavrov said “l[paraphrasing] “our most fundamental demands have not been met, I have received unsatisfactory responses from European capitals.  The Americans have some interesting secondary level proposals we can discuss. And maybe yet we can find agreement on some core things.” 
 

I think that captures the state of play from the Russian angle.  They had core demands, those demands haven’t been met.  If— and it’s a big if— they still climb down, then there’s not a good way to call this a win for Putin. It is a return to status quo after freaking everyone the fuck out and deploying most of his army in an attempt to shift it. 

A lot of this is outward looking from Putin's perspective.  Are the issues he is facing domestically serious enough to manufacture an external threat to quell dissent at home?  The biggest problem with this theory is that he sent troops to the border that could be needed if there are protests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It shouldn't surprise once you realize that when a European hears "military action," he assumes the military action will be undertaken by the United States, not his his own country.  So yeah--plenty of Europeans are willing to spill American blood and spend American treasure to defend Ukraine militarily.  But how many are willing to spend their own?  It's probably in the single digits.

I think that's always has been the problem with NATO and not to CR it but that's why I wasn't mad at Trump for calling NATO out on it.  The disparity of money and troops make it a very American dominant pact but they want to press the issue and lead but when it is time to step up it stumbles because they don't want the blame when shit does go south.  Ukraine is a huge example of it.  NATO is supposed to be a one for all all for one type deal.  But they were publicly getting in each other's way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was speaking to dad (Retired SF Colonel) and he reminded me of something that did not cross my mind. He was one of the first to call the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He said something interesting about this "withdrawal". 

Tanks don't do well over long distances on roads. So you move, train and organize, and reload them. I looked at a map of rail crossings from Russia into the Ukraine and there are quite a few. Trains can go both east and west so why not use the rails, load them saying you are going home, but hit inside the country with airborne and special operations and run them in, unloading once inside the Ukraine.

I know this was a problem in WW2 since the German and Soviet trains were on different gauge, but the Ukraine should not be. 

Shit, his strategy makes sense. 

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

9 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Was speaking to dad (Retired SF Colonel) and he reminded me of something that did not cross my mind. He was one of the first to call the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He said something interesting about this "withdrawal". 

Tanks don't do well over long distances on roads. So you move, train and organize, and reload them. I looked at a map of rail crossings from Russia into the Ukraine and there are quite a few. Trains can go both east and west so why not use the rails, load them saying you are going home, but hit inside the country with airborne and special operations and run them in, unloading once inside the Ukraine.

I know this was a problem in WW2 since the German and Soviet trains were on different gauge, but the Ukraine should not be. 

Shit, his strategy makes sense. 

They're on the same gauge.

railway-gauges-europe.jpg

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

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's still just fucking nuts to me how opposed the German people (apparently) are to nuclear power. It's an unusually emotional position for them to stake out

Chernobyl scared the ever-living fuck out of a lot of Germans/Europeans, and there's a shit-ton of Germans who were kids when it happened, and remembered their parents freaking out and keeping them indoors, etc., and those kids are now in power.

You could give them a nice Powerpoint presentation showing how Chernobyl happened, why it wouldn't happen in modern Western reactors, etc., and it's not going to matter.

That's one of my theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Chernobyl scared the ever-living fuck out of a lot of Germans/Europeans, and there's a shit-ton of Germans who were kids when it happened, and remembered their parents freaking out and keeping them indoors, etc., and those kids are now in power.

You could give them a nice Powerpoint presentation showing how Chernobyl happened, why it wouldn't happen in modern Western reactors, etc., and it's not going to matter.

That's one of my theories.

(a) This thread has been the most captivating, well spoken thread i have seen on any board in many many years.  Thanks to all who have provided insight.  Scary times 

(b) Midnight in Chernobyl is a great book about the meltdown.  HIghly recommend

Now, back to lurking...

 

Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster by [Adam Higginbotham]

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

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

If Putin can get something in writing from Ukraine to the effect of they are not joining NATO.  It's a win for him (as well as NS2).

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Yep.  He wants it in writing to point to

Ukraine is not eligible to join NATO and will not be eligible to join NATO as long as the Crimea/etc. stuff is not settled and as long as Russians aren't stirring shit up with them.

Which means that Ukraine will probably not be eligible to join NATO in our lifetimes, unless Ukraine decides to cut lose the contested areas and redraw its borders.  Whether there is a move on that part or not, I don't know.

 

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

1 minute ago, hersh95 said:

This thread has been the most captivating, well spoken thread i have seen on any board in many many years.  Thanks to all who have provided insight. 

a) go fuck yourself

2) dickbutt

iii) something something South Austin's mom.

 

 

Sorry, just had to keep it real around here.

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

12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Far be it for me to contradict any of you who're on the ground in Europe about European sentiments toward Ukraine, but this recent poll kind of tells a different picture. Three-quarters are on Ukraine's side and a full quarter are willing to support Ukraine with military intervention in a conflict with Russia. Holy shit, that's a lot higher than I would've expected. 

image.png.982d1688053ae50bd4042ad06290655d.png

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-favor-defense-ukraine-diplomacy-poll/

 

Yeah, that ain't even close to being right. If that was actually the case - at least here in Germany - you would see such an overwhelming position reflected in the strategies of at least one of the political parties, particularly in light of how significant foreign policy is in the national discourse. Given that we have 6 parties currently in the Bundestag (7 if you count the Bavarian CSU as separate from the larger German CDU, which is fair as it has its own foreign policy platform), all with their own niche takes on every issue under the sun, at least one would think that this is a fertile issue to exploit. But the one issue in which there is uniform agreement from the reds in die Linke to the Brownshirts in the AfD and all the colors in between is that Germany needs to stay the fuck out of this.

 

And hell, if that poll is correct, we would be looking at 50% supporting military invention with diplomacy, and 26% supporting even without it, if necessary...that would be a very, very popular position. However, to date, we have absolutely zero political parties who have been suicidal enough to even float such an idea.

 

And looking at the below poll, which was done by a very reputable pollster through one of the public broadcasters two weeks ago, I don't see how you square those results (outside of GOLL's point being that to Europeans defending means "sending Americans"). 73% says we shouldn't even send Ukraine weapons to defend themselves, but at the same time 76% believe Germans should head over and directly engage? Yeah, I am not buying that at all.

 

spacer.png

 

https://www.rnd.de/politik/ukraine-konflikt-deutsche-gegen-waffenlieferungen-an-die-ukraine-H7UNL6FTBJEM3FDHTUG7S6ZHDA.html

 

"Conflict Between Russia and Ukraine"

Question 1: "Russia will invade Ukraine"
Question 2: "Germany should deliver weapons to Ukraine"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Had a chuckle with the boy yesterday.  He texts "So....Russia may be set to attack tomorrow?"  I said yeah, but nothing for you to worry about.  He replies "Says you -- I'm living in a NATO capital city within airstrike range."  I told him 1) he knows where his U-bahn station bomb shelter is -- it's right out his front door, so if he hears air raid sirens, hustle there toot sweet.  But again, he has nothing to worry about -- Russia isn't going to bomb its primary source of accounts receivable.  He replied with a laugh emoji and "that's probably right."

Speaking of bomb shelters, I heard a story the other day on the radio (I think it was NPR but it could have been the NYT Daily podcast) where they had gone around through Kyiv (I think) to identify the bomb shelters that had been listed on maps distributed by the government.  Many didn't actually exist as shelters; they were, for example, old metro stations that had been abandoned, or other facilities that were not being kept up, and they certainly were not true, functionable shelters for an air attack.

So there's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Ukraine is not eligible to join NATO and will not be eligible to join NATO as long as the Crimea/etc. stuff is not settled and as long as Russians aren't stirring shit up with them.

Which means that Ukraine will probably not be eligible to join NATO in our lifetimes, unless Ukraine decides to cut lose the contested areas and redraw its borders.  Whether there is a move on that part or not, I don't know.

 

I think that is what Putin intends to do for them. Take up to the Dnieper River and Southeastern coast to consolidate lines into Crimea. Keeps Kyiv under constant artillery threat.

To do this during an invasion still comes south to threaten the capitol forcing Ukraine to withdraw forces to protect the capitol. Amphibious invasion on key areas on the coast that are linked up with armor units. Just speculation, but still don't see major signs of a withdraw. He moved in fast, can move out just as fast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Putin invading is an inevitability, based on sunk costs alone. I think the more interesting question is what does "invade" mean, in this sense. Is it a toe or foot over the line or is it a choke hold.

This is where I’ve been at. The amount of rubles, the logistics of that many tanks… and my friend’s coyness and sarcasm.

Granted he’s a smart ass to begin with, but Russians use sarcasm as a diplomatic sabre, as Lavrov does continuously. 

Something’s afoot. That’s why I wanted agreement on the bet on what constitutes “invasion.”

I don’t think I am going to cash, but the math checks out on the bet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

The bottom line is he wants to further destabilize the country and is weighing whether it's worth it to invade.

If Putin ends up truly backing off, it's because he'll have learned that if he fucks around too much, he'll certainly find out.

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Putin has stated publicly more than once that he seems the Russian and Ukrainian people as one of the same.  And like an oppressive spouse, will beat the ever living shit out of the other until they "love" them (see the invasion and 14K casualties)

I partly agree with what BY is saying, but I also think a big part of it is Russian arrogance that Ukraine belongs to them, based on their long histories.  It's not simply "we are one and the same" but "we own them, they should be our vassals".

Pre-mobilization, Russia was destabilizing the country quite nicely (in their eyes) without too much of a cost in terms of financial and Russian kids coming home in body bags. It was tolerated by the Russian public.

Invading is going to ramp up the costs across the board, and if Putin backs off,  I think part of it will be because he thinks Ukrainian resistance will be too costly to make it worth his while.  We know a shitload of Ukrainian civilians began going through training to fight back, etc., and Putin probably has a very good idea of just how much the Ukrainian public became invested in resistance.

But it could be simply a reminder to the Ukrainians that Putin could invade and conquer Ukraine anytime he wants, which, on the surface would help the push to join NATO, but the underlying threat is "if you start to try and join NATO, we will invade".

I'm about 60% that Putin backs down at this point, but if they are doing things like pontoon bridges, etc., that's a helluva thing to do to the troops, etc.,

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

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Ukraine is not eligible to join NATO and will not be eligible to join NATO as long as the Crimea/etc. stuff is not settled and as long as Russians aren't stirring shit up with them.

Which means that Ukraine will probably not be eligible to join NATO in our lifetimes, unless Ukraine decides to cut lose the contested areas and redraw its borders.  Whether there is a move on that part or not, I don't know.

 

JbTdlZr-2.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It shouldn't surprise once you realize that when a European hears "military action," he assumes the military action will be undertaken by the United States, not his his own country.  So yeah--plenty of Europeans are willing to spill American blood and spend American treasure to defend Ukraine militarily.  But how many are willing to spend their own?  It's probably in the single digits.

I’ve seen separate polling showing the delta between “NATO should so something,” “the EU should do something,” and “my own county should so something” with the last choice lagging about 40-45 percentage points behind the first two. There is a fundamental lack of understanding among lots of people that NATO/EU = “my country” as these are consensus based organizations that don’t do anything without agreement and action of all parties. 
 

This isn’t unique to Europeans.  I think many Americans view NATO as something that is separate from/above/subordinate to the United States.  Not to CR the place up but I am not confident our previous president understood what it was even after four years in office. Certainly in the debates over funding it seems like people believe NATO has its own army and budget that we are “overfunding.”

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

Hey, remember the bullshit story about “countermeasures” and the U.S. submarine that @FartingMonk  called out as bullshit? Yeah, it’s bullshit.  
 

One of my persistent bugbears is the way the Western press reports on things the Russians say in the old-school journalist neutrality style. “The Russian MOD says X, a Pentagon spokesperson says Y.”  It’s really high time to stop reporting on things Russians say— particularly anything defense related— until there is some sort of independent confirmation.  Otherwise, you’re just a conduit for weaponized information. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Hey, remember the bullshit story about “countermeasures” and the U.S. submarine that @FartingMonk  called out as bullshit? Yeah, it’s bullshit.  
 

One of my persistent bugbears is the way the Western press reports on things the Russians say in the old-school journalist neutrality style. “The Russian MOD says X, a Pentagon spokesperson says Y.”  It’s really high time to stop reporting on things Russians say— particularly anything defense related— until there is some sort of independent confirmation.  Otherwise, you’re just a conduit for weaponized information. 

 

Yeah.  Unless the Russians launched torpedoes at them counter measures don't get deployed.  If torpedoes were launched then two MK48 ADCAPS would tell them to say hello to the Kursk.  I don't think the Russians have forgotten about that

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

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Had a chuckle with the boy yesterday.  He texts "So....Russia may be set to attack tomorrow?"  I said yeah, but nothing for you to worry about.  He replies "Says you -- I'm living in a NATO capital city within airstrike range."  I told him 1) he knows where his U-bahn station bomb shelter is -- it's right out his front door, so if he hears air raid sirens, hustle there toot sweet.  But again, he has nothing to worry about -- Russia isn't going to bomb its primary source of accounts receivable.  He replied with a laugh emoji and "that's probably right."

Just because I want to be surly! LOL.

The_Great_Illusion.jpeg

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

Let me just observe, in further response/assessment of @Shady Ray's evaluation of how various parties are coming out of this, that the Anglo-American strategy of preemptively publishing intelligence about an imminent invasion is . . . interesting.

We can talk about the reliability of the intelligence (it seems highly reliable, given that it is being verified by everything from commercial satellite images to TicToc videos from people on the ground) or the analysis of the intelligence (which is maybe more in dispute).  But regardless, I think the analogy to the Anglo-American intelligence failure in the lead-up to the Iraq War is misplaced.  In 2003, the intelligence was used to cause a war.  Here, the intelligence is being published to prevent a war.

And I think it is having some effect.  I do think the Russians are having to engage in more diplomacy and do more to cover their tracks than they would have otherwise.  I mean, even if it just takes them a few days or weeks to come up with a new false-flag operation, that could be significant.

It kind of makes me think about how historical acts of aggression in Europe would have played out had similar tactics been used.  What if the British Foreign Ministry had conducted a press conference on October 25, 1939, and said "we have intelligence that the SS has taken prisoners from Dachau and is going to use their corpses to stage a false-flag attack at Gleiwitz."?  What would the Germans have done?  Would it have delayed their invasion of Poland?  Oddly, I think it would have, because the Nazis actually cared about domestic opinion (the Gleiwitz false-flag operation was almost entirely for domestic consumption), and it at least would have caused the Nazis to pause to consider whether the German public was listening to the British statements.

And maybe that's where we are with Putin and Ukraine.  He's pausing to see how all this is going to play domestically.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ve seen separate polling showing the delta between “NATO should so something,” “the EU should do something,” and “my own county should so something” with the last choice lagging about 40-45 percentage points behind the first two. There is a fundamental lack of understanding among lots of people that NATO/EU = “my country” as these are consensus based organizations that don’t do anything without agreement and action of all parties. 
 

This isn’t unique to Europeans.  I think many Americans view NATO as something that is separate from/above/subordinate to the United States.  Not to CR the place up but I am not confident our previous president understood what it was even after four years in office. Certainly in the debates over funding it seems like people believe NATO has its own army and budget that we are “overfunding.”

you referring to Black Bush?  Reminds me of one of my favorite skits from DC:

 

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

Something that hasn’t been discussed too much is whether this accelerates Finland potentially entering NATO. It’s been growing for decades, and it is somewhat obvious that A) Russia is doing everything to expand its power in border states, including seizing territory it thinks is its own and B) NATO / EU / USA all believe that interfering militarily against Russia is not a viable strategy outside of if it is against a NATO member. 
 

Curious to see how much Finlandization is even possible at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

Something that hasn’t been discussed too much is whether this accelerates Finland potentially entering NATO. It’s been growing for decades, and it is somewhat obvious that A) Russia is doing everything to expand its power in border states, including seizing territory it thinks is its own and B) NATO / EU / USA all believe that interfering militarily against Russia is not a viable strategy outside of if it is against a NATO member. 
 

Curious to see how much Finlandization is even possible at this point. 

A clever way to get Sanna Marin in our discussion. 
The cut of your jib sir, I approve.

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

30 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

Something that hasn’t been discussed too much is whether this accelerates Finland potentially entering NATO. It’s been growing for decades, and it is somewhat obvious that A) Russia is doing everything to expand its power in border states, including seizing territory it thinks is its own and B) NATO / EU / USA all believe that interfering militarily against Russia is not a viable strategy outside of if it is against a NATO member. 
 

Curious to see how much Finlandization is even possible at this point. 

Finland looking at Russia like

Am2Dm GIF by AM to DM

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

We’ll see how undefeated it really if finlands PM goes toe to toe with Putin

If you're Finland, isn't your response to Russia "Finland knows what to do.  We have skis, we have rifles, and we have bullets.  And Russia has body bags.  It sounds like everyone has what they need."

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

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Putin is throwing around the term genocide, there’s no way he doesn’t attack to liberate the ethnic Russians in Donbas. I’m still calling the day after the Olympics for the attack. Putin doesn’t want unnecessarily piss off China by raining on their parade.

I think the day of. Attacks Sunday quietly at first, but that is the kick off. So EW shit starts before, but that is normal for the Russians to be doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Finland isn't going to move to NATO for at least a decade.
And Ukraine is way below the criteria for admission.  Kind of like aggy taking the GRE.  Forgeddabouddit.

On a more serious note, did you know that this is FInland's Prime Ministe r?  Bet you didn't.

image.png.c33eb1dca45b4894e50fc83e368e61c4.png  image.png.89d31c4b37377c59e9dedcb15ffaf2b3.png

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

Historically, the CIA always said the Russians are nothing more than a glorified crew.
Plain and simple. We decapitate and do business with whatever is left. 
This thing should have been done during  Yeltsin’s era. They got redundant upper management, bleeds off half the kick. 
We take them out and absorb the whole fucking thing. 
Let me tell you a couple or three things: Forget the Cuban Missile Crisis, Forget Crimea, Forget Fat Dom who goes over to Norilsk and never comes back. 
Vladimir Putin has no respect for this thing. He’s never been in the can. Not really. 
He’s a guy who stepped over his own constitution to grab the big seat. 
Listen to me. They make anybody and everybody over there. And the way that they do it is all fucked up. 
Either it has meaning or no meaning. 

Five fucking super powers, and we got this other pigmy thing over there in North Asia. 

There’s no scraps in my scrapbook.
Make it happen.

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

Russian state media is really playing up reports of shelling near Luhansk today. As a reminder, there is a low grade conflict going on for years and shelling is nothing out of the ordinary but they are really hyping this one.

Also, despite the withdrawal announcement both OSINT and official Western assessments have said that Russia has increased its presence and moved into a more aggressive posture since the “withdrawal.” 

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

Interesting and informative poll came out here last week from one of the regular pollsters in the big periodicals. While the overall results aren't necessarily surprising (only 33% of Germans chose as the appropriate govt response type of supportive measures to Ukraine either in the form of weapons deliveries (15%) or stopping NS2 (18%)), a couple of other things are interesting:

 

1. One third of Germans essentially support the Crimea-ization of the "People's Republics", supporting a "referendum" for Russian-speaking regions to choose to leave Ukraine, which is essentially even more hostile to Ukraine than just "Germany should stay out of it";
 

2. The Center-right CDU and the Greens are the "most friendly" to Ukraine, but even so, a whopping 61% of those support either an independence vote or complete German absention from involvement; the "most hostile" are the former DDR communists of Die Linke, with 78% in favor of the absention/referendum options and the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland at 76%, with the SPD supporting those measures at 64% and the Free Dems at 62%. So almost exactly the same amount of Germans support the Republics breaking away completely as delivering weapons/halting NS2. That is shocking IMO.


And that is a remarkably consistent position across the entirety of what is a fairly wide political spectrum here. Good thing for Ukraine that Germany doesn't have a say on it.

 

Translation of the graphic:

Ukraine-Conflict: Only every third for more active support

"The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has intensified in recent weeks. How do you think the federal government should behave?"

Dark Blue: Supporting Ukraine with arms supplies so that it could defend itself in the event of a Russian invasion.

Turquoise: Prevent the NS2 gas pipeline from being put into operation so that Russia cannot deliver additional gas to Germany bypassing Ukraine.

Grey: Do not support either of the conflicting parties and stay out of the conflict

Light Blue: Work to ensure that the Russian-speaking regions in eastern Ukraine can decide in free elections whether they want to remain part of Ukraine

 

spacer.png

 

==============================

Ukraine conflict: Only one third of Germans in favor of more active support for Ukraine
 

Hamburg, February 10, 2022 - While diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the Ukraine conflict are in full swing, especially in Germany, France and the United States, only one-third of Germans want the German government to provide more active support for Ukraine. According to a recent survey by the market and opinion research institute Ipsos, only 15 percent of German citizens are in favor of German arms deliveries to Ukraine. 18 percent believe the German government should prevent the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from going into operation as part of conflict resolution.

......

And just an interesting side-note from the full polling report...I guess you can take the Ossi out of the USSR, but you can't take the Russia out of the Ossi.

East Germans more concerned about restraint
In the eastern German federal states, at 42 percent (compared to 35% in total) there is an above-average number of respondents who advocate Germany not intervening in the Ukraine conflict. Accordingly, only 8 percent of East Germans (vs. 15% overall) consider arms deliveries from Germany and 14 percent (vs. 18% overall) to stop Nord Stream 2 as a suitable means of conflict resolution. In contrast, free elections in eastern Ukraine about remaining in Ukraine are slightly more in favor of eastern Germans with 36 percent approval (vs. 32 percent overall).

 

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-02/Ipsos-PI_Einstellungen-zum-Ukrainekonflikt_Politische-Frage-des-Monats_Feb2022.pdf

 

Edited by Shady Ray
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning lots of heavy shelling across the entire front line in Luhansk.  Early Russian reports of shelling a school in Luhansk were wrong— the school is on the Ukrainian side of the LOC and was hit by separatist fire. Several injuries, no deaths.

To note— this is NOT unusual in the East, what’s unusual is Russian state media coverage. Also this:

 

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

This morning lots of heavy shelling across the entire front line in Luhansk.  Early Russian reports of shelling a school in Luhansk were wrong— the school is on the Ukrainian side of the LOC and was hit by separatist fire. Several injuries, no deaths.
To note— this is NOT unusual in the East, what’s unusual is Russian state media coverage. Also this:
 

Watching this and seeing traffic move along like yea whatever, this dawned on me-

as they commute to work, Russian dash cams are going to get some crazy ass clips of war if this goes down.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This morning lots of heavy shelling across the entire front line in Luhansk.  Early Russian reports of shelling a school in Luhansk were wrong— the school is on the Ukrainian side of the LOC and was hit by separatist fire. Several injuries, no deaths.

To note— this is NOT unusual in the East, what’s unusual is Russian state media coverage. Also this:

 

Kiev wasn't the objective.  It was Donbas all along.  Set up the false flag.  Russia sends in peacekeepers.  Get Donbas and set up an autonomous zone.  Putin really playing the 4D chess.  Kiev goes down from backdoor dealing and pro Russia takes over.  

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

1 hour ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


Watching this and seeing traffic move along like yea whatever, this dawned on me-

as they commute to work, Russian dash cams are going to get some crazy ass clips of war if this goes down.

You joke but this is what a lot of OSINT is.  Some Russian dude with a dashcam drives past a convoy of fuel trucks near Bryansk, uploads it to TikTok.  The nerds that keep an eye out for this stuff grab screenshots of the account and geolocate- where it was, what direction it’s going. Maybe later compare that with open source satellite imagery. Then they put it on Twitter. 
 

A geek who knows TikTok, how to use google maps, and a bit of knowledge of military hardware can put shot on Twitter that spies used to die for. 

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

You joke but this is what a lot of OSINT is.  Some Russian dude with a dashcam drives past a convoy of fuel trucks near Bryansk, uploads it to TikTok.  The nerds that keep an eye out for this stuff grab screenshots of the account and geolocate- where it was, what direction it’s going. Maybe later compare that with open source satellite imagery. Then they put it on Twitter. 
 
A geek who knows TikTok, how to use google maps, and a bit of knowledge of military hardware can put shot on Twitter that spies used to die for. 

Never thought of that…crazy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

Russia pulling out the persona non grata cards...Deputy US Ambassador to Russia kicked out.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-latest-russia-expels-deputy-us-ambassador/a-60808178

I love when this happens.  Titties for tatties!  Except we are going to expel the Syrian interests section of the Russian embassy

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...