Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Anyone notice what is wrong with this Russian map?

The RU is still holding ground over the Oskil river? They are holding territory south of the split of the Oskil river? There are no UKA troops over the Oski? So that 99% is closer to 90 or so and falling with the encirclement in Lyman. The other 3 are fairly accurate with the front lines being rather static around natural barriers.

Until Kherson falls or until the UKA can get into a position to start targeting the main supply lines by continuing to advance in the north, there will most likely be not a lot of changes in that map.

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

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Putin has already decided to use nukes, and this speech was him creating justification (even if the justification is reasonable only in what little remains of his mind).  I can't see any response that the US could reasonably make that wouldn't involve a direct attack on Russian forces and/or territory (real Russian territory, not Putin's fake Russian territory).  In that case, I believe Putin would escalate to the use of strategic nuclear weapons and we are seeing the beginning of the end unless there are people in the Russian military who are willing to take him out, or at least disobey his orders.  I'm a little sad that I won't get to see my grandson grow up and my younger kids mature into adults, but the world they would inherit would probably be a pretty shitty place anyway.  I guess I'm just going to uncork a nice bottle of wine and watch the world implode.

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

37 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So hear me out, why doesn’t Ukraine just surrender? 

No but giving that land up that Putin will never stop fight for anyway seems better then all out war between NATO and Russia.  Draw the line in the sand there add all of the old Russian bloc that wants to NATO, make it clear if it’s crossed then we react accordingly and we get the end result we are possibly heading towards anyway.   That gives him no more aggression options or he know what will happen. I know he probably wouldn’t accept it anyway but seems worth an attempt atleast. In reality someone needs to take him out asap. I have never been for them giving up any land before but I don’t see a end to this without some form of negotiations, War with Russia or Putin’s death. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Putin has already decided to use nukes,

A good argument could be made that he won’t use nukes because he resorted to the mobilization (his mouthpieces threatened nukes on their TV shows, the West laughed, so he was forced to mobilize).   And as mentioned, this is not the 1980s and there’s not a mass of troops and tanks bearing down on a Fulda Gap-style bottleneck in Ukraine. 

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

17 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So let me spell this out clearly.  First, in the absence of nuclear weapons Putin doesn’t get a choice whether to stop fighting for that land, on the battlefield it’s looking more and more likely that he’d actually lose it.  Second, he’s claiming now that he’s taken territory that he doesn’t even control at the moment, that is fully under Ukrainian control.  So he’s reached into his pocket and placed the split atom on the table— telling Ukraine to get out, give him what he wants.  
 

The precedent here is for every shitty ass authoritarian regime to go get nuclear weapons and then not even try to win a war. Just be shitty enough to make people believe you’ll use them.  That’s not a world Ukrainians or I want to live in. 

 

 

I get it, just looking for options where this doesn’t end really bad.  So basically Putin dead is the only option for that and not negotiating at all.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

I get it, just looking for options where this doesn’t end really bad.  So basically Putin dead is the only option for that and not negotiating at all.  

Putin dying or getting replaced in a coup doesn't mean nutty, aggressive Russia isn't still nutty, aggressive Russia.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Putin has already decided to use nukes, and this speech was him creating justification (even if the justification is reasonable only in what little remains of his mind).  I can't see any response that the US could reasonably make that wouldn't involve a direct attack on Russian forces and/or territory (real Russian territory, not Putin's fake Russian territory).  In that case, I believe Putin would escalate to the use of strategic nuclear weapons and we are seeing the beginning of the end unless there are people in the Russian military who are willing to take him out, or at least disobey his orders.  I'm a little sad that I won't get to see my grandson grow up and my younger kids mature into adults, but the world they would inherit would probably be a pretty shitty place anyway.  I guess I'm just going to uncork a nice bottle of wine and watch the world implode.

On what basis do you think that Russia could actually mount a strategic nuclear strike at this point?

The maintenance and physical condition of the Russian nuclear missile force is obviously questionable, based on what we've seen from Russia's conventional forces.  I think it's probably likely that the nuclear forces are maintained better than the conventional forces.  But is that a fair assumption?  After all, isn't the most high-dollar stuff that would be rife for corruption committed to the nuclear forces?  And of all things, isn't that what a grifter would think "this will never be used, so what's the harm if I steal it?"

The quality of the missile-force personnel is also a question.  We've seen shoulder patches from the missile forces in Ukraine, which indicates that Russia is using missileers as . . . and I can't believe this, but apparently it's true . . . fucking infantry in Ukraine.  Does that imply that there are silos in Siberia that are un-/under-manned?

But more than either of those things, we're not going to let them.  From last December, we've known everything Putin was going to do before his own military commanders do. We knew long before Russia's military commanders that Russia was going to invade Ukraine.  We knew beforehand that Russia was going to do these referenda.  And we even knew the date on which Russia was going to "annex" these territories.

Based on all that, I suspect that we would know if Putin decided to launch a strategic nuclear strike even before the order to launch made its way down to the missile forces.

And if that is the case, that would give us an opportunity to launch a counterforce strike.  And let's be real clear about something--our strategic nuclear forces are in real good shape.  And we are very capable of launching an effective counterforce strike against Russia.  We obviously wouldn't get all of their missiles.  But we'd probably take out well more than 75% of their strategic nuclear force, while we retain 75% of ours as a remaining deterrent.  

And if Putin doesn't know all that at this point, then he's far dumber than I think.

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

2 minutes ago, tokamak said:

This annexation thing seems real, real bad to me. Not only can Russia not "give them back", but their line is going to shift to "Ukraine is literally attacking Russian territory with Western weapons and Western encouragement".

That is literally the only reason why they did it, they told us as much. In practice, Ukraine might win it all back, but unless russia undergoes some serious cultural reforms all this will do is setup the next war, where they start whipping their people up again saying they have to reclaim the land.

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

The nuclear saber rattling is disconcerting but IMHO the "annexation" was more for domestic consumption so that people will accept mobilization. It changes the narrative internally from "we're attacking Ukraine to stop Nazis" to "we're defending our territory from an aggressor". And yes, many will buy it as that's what the propagandists will say. It's a big change in the story but it's how Putin rolls. 

None of that changes the situation on the ground in Ukraine nor does it change what is about to occur once Lend-Lease kicks off tomorrow. The mobilization isn't going to work and Russia is running out of modern weapons. 

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

10 minutes ago, tokamak said:

This annexation thing seems real, real bad to me. Not only can Russia not "give them back", but their line is going to shift to "Ukraine is literally attacking Russian territory with Western weapons and Western encouragement".

Ukraine has already hit assets in Crimea with western weapons. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
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...