Author Topic: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка  (Read 34350 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #450 on: March 30, 2022, 03:01:35 PM »
This war definitely makes an argument for proliferation. Either by protecting yourself from invasion or warding off direct interference from the West. The counter arguments remain: that they're expensive, they upset everyone, and actually using them can make a situation significantly worse.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine eventually said "let us join NATO or we'll get nukes."

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #451 on: March 30, 2022, 03:10:02 PM »
This war definitely makes an argument for proliferation. Either by protecting yourself from invasion or warding off direct interference from the West. The counter arguments remain: that they're expensive, they upset everyone, and actually using them can make a situation significantly worse.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine eventually said "let us join NATO or we'll get nukes."

I think what this war definitely makes a argument for is how costly, pointless and absurd Conventual War is in the 21 century. So many other methods to screw with a country you want for whatever.

But I suspect you are correct, to be 'great' again, the lesson we will take from this is for proliferation and more money to the military complex. What a waist

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #452 on: March 30, 2022, 04:22:38 PM »
This war definitely makes an argument for proliferation. Either by protecting yourself from invasion or warding off direct interference from the West.

Meh.  Not so much and depends on what yields and where you point it at. 

A handful of nuclear weapons that somebody like Iran or North Korea could get their hands on would probably not change the calculus much.  It's just not the same level of threat or versatility you get from Russia.  The difference is that you can no longer go with the "END OF HUMANITY!!!" crap that gives some people the vapors.  It would be the same with Ukraine.  And it would still lead to the same place.  "You nuke me I nuke you".  Nukes are practically worthless except against another nuclear armed country to keep them from using their nukes on you.  So far Russia still hasn't used nukes on Ukraine and if they did NATO has said they would respond in some way.  So Ukraine doesn't need nukes.  They're already practically under the NATO nuclear umbrella, though this depends on people's intestinal fortitude if a nuclear exchange occurred. 

On the other hand, what this war has shown is the great superiority of NATO military equipment and fighting styles.  It has shown that with the right equipment, the right training, the right preparation, that a small light infantry force trained to operate independently and trained with modern anti-armor weapons and tactics, you can defeat a major mechanized attack.  Ditto the importance of air power and artillery for offense.  It shows just how remarkable the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, and how hard it is to accomplish such a feat against stiff resistance. 

Instead of wanting nuclear weapons, it's more likely Finland decides to spend more money on ATGMs and more fighter jets.  Meanwhile, traditional enemies like North Korea, China, and Iran will be trying to get more drones and aircraft. 

I don't think that Ukraine having a handful of nuclear weapons would have made a difference in preventing or fighting this war.  So invest in Lockheed, Raytheon, and Thales. 


NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #453 on: March 30, 2022, 04:42:05 PM »
Yes, I meant to mention that it's the size of Russia's arsenal which grants it immunity from direct intervention. While Iran or N Korea's nukes could make an invasion much more expensive that an equivalent weight of conventional forces but once they've shot them off, they're basically screwed.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #454 on: March 30, 2022, 04:44:58 PM »
Nukes have almost certainly prevented a war between India and Pakistan. Just because you're cavalier about the prospect of a nuclear exchange, Grant, doesn't mean that Putin wouldn't have considered whether faced with annihilation Kyiv might go ahead and melt the Kremlin. I'd say North Korea's nukes probably had a deterrent effect as well - although their conventional artillery did also.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #455 on: April 01, 2022, 07:53:46 AM »
Russia: Blowing up our fuel depot isn't helping the peace talks.
Mariupol: F### you.

I was hoping that Ukraine would find a way to strike territory in Russia. That's what happens when you attack a bordering country instead of invading one on the other side of the world like we do. It doesn't change the strategic direction, but now you can have Russian soldiers and civilians away from the front line starting to worry about their safety.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #456 on: April 01, 2022, 08:46:48 AM »
Maybe the Russian troops were never told about what happened there.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russians-leave-chernobyl-ukraine-braces-040545645.html


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #457 on: April 06, 2022, 05:32:57 PM »
Now we get to contemplate the moral calculations of "What if a nuclear power is committing genocide?". In other words, if Germany has nukes when it involves Poland, and we find out they are killing millions, what's our move? If the mass graves keep popping up, do we just go all-in and hope that Putin won't obliterate the world to avoid facing the shame of utter defeat?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #458 on: April 07, 2022, 02:47:37 PM »
Some updates.

The Russians have withdrawn from the NW and NE of Keev.  Either because they understood they were about to be encircled, or because they understood they could no longer achieve their objectives there.  Whatever.  It was the smartest move they have made yet in the war.  There is some pretty good intel that they are redeploying these forces to the Donbas front.  These units have already been torn up pretty good, so I don't know how combat effective they are, but I think the Russians are looking at it like every bit helps. 

By redeploying to just a single main effort/front in the Donbas, the Russians have helped their logistics problems.  No longer will they be trying to push class I/III/V down through north east Ukraine, around Ukrainian controlled enclaves, full of territorial defense units etc with ATGM, mines, etc.  A bunch of the advantages the Ukrainians had due to the Russians overextending themselves are now gone. 

The good news is that a political decapitation of Ukraine seems to be off the table, unless the Russians use nukes or a really large chemical attack on Keev.  There is always a chance one of their hit squads makes it through, but I imagine they are running short on assassins.  Another difference between the movies and reality. 

The bad news is that the Russians are now set to turn Ukraine into World War 1.  Using massive artillery attacks and air attacks to ground down Ukrainian forces.  What I had expected them to do for 2-7 days at the start of the war but never did.  They can mass their air defense weapons as well, creating more cover for their own aerospace forces to make more ground attacks. 

Mariupol is still holding but can't forever.  No further word on the "brilliant" plans of Macron on sending relief ships. 

The new Russian deployment fits with their new strategy/objective of just securing Donbas and then calling it a victory for Pooter.  Because the elimination of the northern/Kyiv front eliminates many of the logistical weaknesses of the Russians, and switches back to a form of warfare they are probably better at (blow the *censored* out of everything) the Ukrainians will have a harder time defending.  The Ukrainians are also redeploying some of their forces assigned to the defense of Keev to the Donbas front.  But the way the front is formed geographically makes it difficult to counterattack at particular places and favors the Russians, having formed a large salient.  It's also unclear how many experienced tankers and mechanized infantry the Ukrainians have left, in order to afford a real counterattack.

The Ukrainians have won a great victory.  But I think the easy part is over.  The Russians on the Donbas front will be harder to crack.  They're not overextended.  Their logistics are more secure.  The Russian's flanks are now secured by Russian territory.  The best locations for a counter attack would be south of Chuhuiv or North of Izium.  But again, not sure how much armor and mech infantry the Ukrainians have left.  With the right amount, the Russians could be vulnerable. 


Reports of massacres in towns to the NE of Kyiv.  Lawyers are focusing on calling it genocide.  Some more uproar.  Good thing we held some sanctions back, or we'd have nothing to respond to the latest. 


The war appears set to turn into a drawn out fight of attrition, where the Russians destroy Ukraine a city at a time, and pound the Ukrainian Army a unit at a time with artillery and air attacks.  This depends on how exhausted the Ukrainians are and how long the Russians can continue fighting. 

At this point, Poland entering the war alone would probably end the war in 1-2 weeks.  I don't dare deign to imagine that the United States would enter the war, because that would be "World War Three" and a single Russian killed by an American soldier instead of a Ukrainian soldier would lead to the "end of civilization".  Anyways, that's what some people are saying. 

Ukraine needs more artillery.  More drones.  More tanks.  More IFVs.  All the while keeping up with ATGM deliveries.  They could use some better airplanes and missiles but we've had long talks about that. 




yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #459 on: April 07, 2022, 03:00:18 PM »
Some updates.

The Russians have withdrawn from the NW and NE of Keev.  Either because they understood they were about to be encircled, or because they understood they could no longer achieve their objectives there.  Whatever.  It was the smartest move they have made yet in the war.  There is some pretty good intel that they are redeploying these forces to the Donbas front.  These units have already been torn up pretty good, so I don't know how combat effective they are, but I think the Russians are looking at it like every bit helps. 

By redeploying to just a single main effort/front in the Donbas, the Russians have helped their logistics problems.  No longer will they be trying to push class I/III/V down through north east Ukraine, around Ukrainian controlled enclaves, full of territorial defense units etc with ATGM, mines, etc.  A bunch of the advantages the Ukrainians had due to the Russians overextending themselves are now gone. 

The good news is that a political decapitation of Ukraine seems to be off the table, unless the Russians use nukes or a really large chemical attack on Keev.  There is always a chance one of their hit squads makes it through, but I imagine they are running short on assassins.  Another difference between the movies and reality. 

The bad news is that the Russians are now set to turn Ukraine into World War 1.  Using massive artillery attacks and air attacks to ground down Ukrainian forces.  What I had expected them to do for 2-7 days at the start of the war but never did.  They can mass their air defense weapons as well, creating more cover for their own aerospace forces to make more ground attacks. 

Mariupol is still holding but can't forever.  No further word on the "brilliant" plans of Macron on sending relief ships. 

The new Russian deployment fits with their new strategy/objective of just securing Donbas and then calling it a victory for Pooter.  Because the elimination of the northern/Kyiv front eliminates many of the logistical weaknesses of the Russians, and switches back to a form of warfare they are probably better at (blow the *censored* out of everything) the Ukrainians will have a harder time defending. 

...

The war appears set to turn into a drawn out fight of attrition, where the Russians destroy Ukraine a city at a time, and pound the Ukrainian Army a unit at a time with artillery and air attacks.  This depends on how exhausted the Ukrainians are and how long the Russians can continue fighting. 

At this point, Poland entering the war alone would probably end the war in 1-2 weeks.  I don't dare deign to imagine that the United States would enter the war, because that would be "World War Three" and a single Russian killed by an American soldier instead of a Ukrainian soldier would lead to the "end of civilization".  Anyways, that's what some people are saying. 

Ukraine needs more artillery.  More drones.  More tanks.  More IFVs.  All the while keeping up with ATGM deliveries.  They could use some better airplanes and missiles but we've had long talks about that.

A big Russian redeployment in the East, heavy causalities in Ukrainian cities, we'll see how wed the Ukrainians are to Donbas. Or if the Ukrainians are just so irate at this point that they won't give an inch of territory for peace. But that does seem to be the quickest end, let the territories be "independent" *cough* Russian puppets *cough*. And try to rebuild the rest of the country the best you can. The other option is to try to kill enough Russian soldiers and destroy enough of their military equipment they have to pack up and go home. The Ukrainians are doing well. But without the crushing victory in the North that removes all those Russian forces from the field I'm not sure. The Russians are going to redeploy those troops in the East and I'm not sure the Ukrainians have the fire power needed to force Russia's hand on the battle field without the supply and logistics issues you pointed out they were facing around Kyiv.

Ukraine needs the Polish army or the USAF if Russia focuses on one front in the east. Maybe the can surprise me again but stalemate and lots of destruction seem like the most likely result of that fighting.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #460 on: April 07, 2022, 03:01:18 PM »
Now we get to contemplate the moral calculations of "What if a nuclear power is committing genocide?".

Well, nothing of course.  Fighting Russia would mean "World War Three".  That would mean "the end of human civilization".  Can't have that. 

Our nuclear weapons are only good for deterring Russian nuclear attacks on ourselves, and the people we draw inside this little circle in pencil on a map.  The people outside the circle are just, well, screwed.  Can't help them.  But we can destroy their economy to the best of our ability and send certain types of weapons to help kill Russians, because that is within the rules that we think the Russians are playing by. 

Quote
do we just go all-in and hope that Putin won't obliterate the world to avoid facing the shame of utter defeat?

It's funny, because we seem to be in a race over who can bear the most shame or dishonor.  Putin or the entire west.  I'm going to bet on the entire west being able to shoulder more shame, because they can spread it out and blame other people instead of actually doing anything.  Poland can blame Germany and Germany can blame the US and the US can blame Biden and Biden can blame Poland.  So in the meantime, as someone once said, "F Ukraine, it's lousy they are being massacred, but it's lousy what the United States did to Afghanistan.  Can't do anything without the UN."

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #461 on: April 07, 2022, 10:55:00 PM »
Destroyed Russian BMP-2 spotted and photographed, northwest of Kiev I think, with “Wolverines” spay painted on it.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #462 on: April 11, 2022, 04:16:54 PM »
Unconfirmed reports of Russian chemical weapons use in Mariupol. Claims of difficulty breathing.  No photos. No video. No medical reports. Only detail is it was supposedly distributed by a drone. Reported by Azov BN suposedly.

No details. Vapor, gas, liquid?  No details on odor. No details on onset or other symptoms. 

Still early, but nowhere near the amount of data and evidence from the major chemical strikes in Syria by the Assad regime and later denied by the Kremlin’s useful idiots on the interwebs.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #463 on: April 11, 2022, 04:36:05 PM »
Life at it's absurdist. I weep

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #464 on: April 13, 2022, 10:40:57 PM »
No new evidence on chemical attack in Mariupol. Either it was something simple like CS or more likely something like something burning like plastic in a city being bombarded.

Russian Slava class CG Moskva , flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, was reportedly hit by two Neptune anti-ship missiles. Russian state media has confirmed the ship was on fire, the ammunition ignited, and the crew was evacuated.  No word on a missile strike. The Rooskies can now choose between saying they were so incompetent that a country without a navy sank their flagship, or that they were so incompetent that fire protection and poor maintenance led to the loss of their flagship.

Finland and Sweden making noise again about joining NATO. Pooter warns would have dire consequences.  Somebody needs to tell Sweden and Finland that joining NATO won’t help them. If the Russians invade the United States would not dare actually killing a single Russian soldier in direct combat, because it would lead to the end of civilization.  Sanctions and weapons sales are the best we can do. But only certain weapons. Not these other weapons. And Germany will still buy Russian gas and finance them killing you.

Boris Johnston made it to Kyiv. No word when the DNC will be capable of letting Grandpa President go without causing 50% of all registered Democrats to “have a cow, man”. 

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #465 on: April 13, 2022, 10:47:12 PM »
Boris Johnston made it to Kyiv. No word when the DNC will be capable of letting Grandpa President go without causing 50% of all registered Democrats to “have a cow, man”.

If we’re going to send Americans to Kyiv, my vote is for an airborne brigade. And lots of drones. And the air force. The war is over if we decide to unleash our air power and Russia is fighting without air cover while getting pounded from the air. Just have to convince the Ukrainians not to chase anyone past the boarder in that scenario.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #466 on: April 13, 2022, 10:57:30 PM »
Germany refuses to turn its deactivated nuclear power plants back on to reduce dependence on Russian gas, saying that nuclear energy would not actually reduce foreign dependence on energy, Germany would then being reliant on sales of uranium from…Canada.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #467 on: April 13, 2022, 10:59:00 PM »
If the Russians invade the United States would not dare actually killing a single Russian soldier in direct combat, because it would lead to the end of civilization.

I have no doubt that at some point in history the button will be pushed on this, and a precedent will be set that conventional war with a nuclear power does not necessitate nuclear arms. It essentially must be tested at some point. The question will always be when it's worth it to take the gamble. Would you be the one to push the button, right now?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #468 on: April 13, 2022, 11:10:51 PM »

If we’re going to send Americans to Kyiv, my vote is for an airborne brigade. And lots of drones. And the air force.

I feel a BDE from the 82nd would have been the right answer in the first month, when the fighting was mostly defensive in nature. This could have freed up Ukrainian mechanized units for counterattacks elsewhere. 

Now, with the nature of the war switching to attrition rather than blunting an attack, what is needed is a hammer, not a snake pit. I would suggest sending an Armored Cavalry Regiment, or even better a heavy division. 

But as suggested, the even simpler solution is simply unleash the USAF and let them win the war in 2-4 days. I mean, I suppose the Russians could hold out and let themselves be slowly annihilated like the Iraqis during the opening of Desert Storm for 2-4 weeks. But the end would be unavoidable.  It would also make air bases in Poland, Germany, and Romania the new prime targets for tac nuke attack. If Pooter uses a tac nuke so many people in the US and Europe will void their bowels simultaneously that there probably isn’t enough Charmin to handle it.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #469 on: April 13, 2022, 11:19:54 PM »
Would you be the one to push the button, right now?

I kinda feel Kennedy already pushed the button in 1962 and Mattis just about did it again in 2018.  So yeah, I’d push the button. But I’m the last neocon superhawk. I’m one step under Curtis LeMay (recognize real crazy).  I honestly don’t see another viable option except surrender.  I know some people think there is some kind of third way that we’re doing now, but as I’ve shown, we’re eventually going to reach the very same decision point with the third way.  It’s just going to take longer and cost more Ukrainian lives, more rapes, more executions, more dead children. 

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #470 on: April 14, 2022, 06:43:03 AM »
If Russia is going to act like this, it feels like we're just going to have to say well if you want a nuclear war and to destroy most or all of humanity, then that's your choice but we can't let you just kill all of these innocent people like this. If you obliterate the world, there may not be any history left but if there is it will record that your evil and our refusal to abide it was the end of all. We can only hope that someone over there will stop the insanity, but letting it play out like this is looking like less and less of a viable option.

We'd probably want some sort of U.N. approval if that's possible first though. After all, it is the life of every person in every country at stake. At a minimum, for crimes already committed, it seems like Russia should be kicked out of its permanent Security Council seat. I don't know if there is a way to do it. It is called a permanent seat after all. But it should be done anyway.

As more and more countries get nuclear weapons, we can't let their possession be a carte blanche for the types of crimes against humanity we're seeing in Ukraine. Doing that will encourage more and more countries to develop nuclear weapons as their only defense against nuclear powers like Russia who think they can do anything they want to whomever they want and so the nuclear war we're so desperate to avoid right now will become even more likely down the line and with more countries having nukes the threat of nuclear terrorism also escalates to near inevitability.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #471 on: April 14, 2022, 08:05:20 AM »
Maybe nuclear war is inevitable. It certainly felt that way in the 1980s. We got through that period because we followed certain rules under the gentleman's agreement that kept the US and the USSR from annihilating each other, even while carrying out despicable acts in the name of defeating the other - acts far worse cumulatively than what we're seeing in Ukraine, as appalling as it is. We didn't shoot Russian helicopters out of the sky in Afghanistan, and they were committing the same atrocities there. We fought them the same way, smuggling in missiles and other portable munitions. But never ever having an American hand on the button that launched them, at least not provably. Should we have gone all in on that hand? Is it inevitable that if we don't fight Russia head-to-head in Ukraine, then they'll keep going and never stop? Because that didn't happen in Afghanistan. Russia didn't continue on to Pakistan. Russian was contained by Nato in Europe.

It's also wrong to describe it as "Russia contemplates the decision and decides to annihilate the world." It's a tit-for-tat that percolates and escalates. Cruise missiles hammering Eastern Europe with conventional warfare isn't exactly great either. Then we retaliate with strikes on non-capital Russian cities. Pressure builds. Maybe Putin says its time for a nuke, or maybe the command and control isn't airtight and a Russian general decides its time. That can't go unanswered, so St. Petersburg gets melted. Somebody realizes the trajectory of this escalation, and goes for the full strike before the other guy can do it.

It's a horrible choice. If one of your children falls out of a lifeboat, do you dive in to try to save them or do you stay and protect the other kids that are still in the boat? If you dive, you might save everyone. Or you might get everyone killed. But maybe humanity should just be declared a failed experiment and let evolution go back to the drawing board. The Earth will be around long enough to recover and try something new, maybe a more cooperative species next time.

As for removing Russia from the Security Council, there is only one way to do it. Dissolve the UN and start a new world body. There is no mechanism to preserve the existing one. Just like the League of Nations couldn't be reformed while preserving it. It might be interesting if all the other permanent countries resolved to give up their vetoes, but the US would be the last one to do that because, among other things, it couldn't shield Israel from their own invasion and occupation of other people's territory.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #472 on: April 14, 2022, 09:32:35 AM »
Quote
But maybe humanity should just be declared a failed experiment
I used to be optimistic that we would figure it out. I still think we will learn what the better options our, we just won't do them.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #473 on: April 14, 2022, 01:15:30 PM »

We'd probably want some sort of U.N. approval if that's possible first though. After all, it is the life of every person in every country at stake. At a minimum, for crimes already committed, it seems like Russia should be kicked out of its permanent Security Council seat. I don't know if there is a way to do it. It is called a permanent seat after all. But it should be done anyway.

I don't think it's possible.  But I don't really know.  I'm not sure whose permission we really need anyways.  Whose approval is critical so that the "narrative" isn't that the United States is imperialist and Grandpa President is a unilateralist?  Germany's?  I don't think so.  A majority?  I think that's doable.  A majority by population?  Not so long as India seems to be betting on Russia. 

I honestly don't think that "the end of humanity" is in the cards here, and I don't know why people are seriously entertaining the threat. I mean, if you really want to prevent the end of civilization, you can just refuse to respond to a overwhelming strategic nuclear attack on the US and NATO.  We'll all be radioactive dust but Russia, China, India, SE Asia, the ME, Africa, South America, and Australia will be around to pick up the pieces.  See?  End of civilization averted.  But I don't think that's really what people cared about anyways. 

Yes, the refusal to engage Russia head on could in fact encourage countries like China and North Korea to believe that the United States would never engaged them directly due to fear of nuclear attack.  It pretty much completely negates the fact that we have our own nuclear arsenal to deter any nuclear attack on ourselves or our allies.  But that's apparently where we are now. 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #474 on: April 14, 2022, 01:34:28 PM »
It is cynical and cruel, but if we go in and Putin uses even a small nuke in Ukraine, I think Russia becomes an even larger pariah then they are now. Those on the fence would come over to our side, just because Putin crossed the line.  NK and China would probably not move, but I think the rest of the world would We would not even have to nuke them back.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #475 on: April 14, 2022, 01:36:46 PM »

We'd probably want some sort of U.N. approval if that's possible first though. After all, it is the life of every person in every country at stake. At a minimum, for crimes already committed, it seems like Russia should be kicked out of its permanent Security Council seat. I don't know if there is a way to do it. It is called a permanent seat after all. But it should be done anyway.

I don't think it's possible.  But I don't really know.  I'm not sure whose permission we really need anyways.  Whose approval is critical so that the "narrative" isn't that the United States is imperialist and Grandpa President is a unilateralist?  Germany's?  I don't think so.  A majority?  I think that's doable.  A majority by population?  Not so long as India seems to be betting on Russia. 

I honestly don't think that "the end of humanity" is in the cards here, and I don't know why people are seriously entertaining the threat. I mean, if you really want to prevent the end of civilization, you can just refuse to respond to a overwhelming strategic nuclear attack on the US and NATO.  We'll all be radioactive dust but Russia, China, India, SE Asia, the ME, Africa, South America, and Australia will be around to pick up the pieces.  See?  End of civilization averted.  But I don't think that's really what people cared about anyways. 

Yes, the refusal to engage Russia head on could in fact encourage countries like China and North Korea to believe that the United States would never engaged them directly due to fear of nuclear attack.  It pretty much completely negates the fact that we have our own nuclear arsenal to deter any nuclear attack on ourselves or our allies.  But that's apparently where we are now.

Remember how the assassination of an archduke ended up in the death of 40 million people, and that's not even counting the fact that WW1 sowed the seeds for WW2 and another 80 million? That's why. Maybe end of humanity is hyperbole, but I'll throw Ukraine's millions under the bus rather than commit to an order of magnitude more. In this case, sure other humans will survive, but largely at pre-industrial levels. Africa won't do very well when many of the parts that they need to run will be toast. There will be some kind of Omega Man society running around in northern Canada, and Australia will get their. The world is in a collective spasm just from losing Russian oil, what happens when North American and North Sea production is also severely disrupted? You don't even need nukes to get to 100 million dead. I'll gladly take another Vietnam and an estimated over that. In that case, China did roll in and fought US troops directly. And there was a lot of talk about the US using nukes, and look up Fracture Jaw for how close we came to breaking the nuclear seal.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #476 on: April 14, 2022, 02:08:08 PM »
Quote
The world is in a collective spasm just from losing Russian oil, what happens when North American and North Sea production is also severely disrupted?

Like it our not nations are so interdependent on each other that its taking less and less to throw things into chaos. A ship gets stuck - chaos. Imagine if the 'cloud' is destroyed, if our access to the internet is impacted?

One of the things Putin is attempting to accomplish is to shape reality as he wishes it to be. To dismantle the norms by which we live by. Why was doing business so difficult to do in Russia. Because Putin doesn't care about the rules. Treaties having no more power then the paper they are written on when you can shift realty to conform to your intention.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #477 on: April 14, 2022, 03:02:08 PM »
Maybe nuclear war is inevitable.

No.  It's a choice.  Psychohistory doesn't exist.  Thucydides Traps are the invention of weak minds.   

Quote
It certainly felt that way in the 1980s.

The only thing certain I remember is that the Soviets were certain that Reagan or Bush would turn all of the Soviet Union into a glowing cinder if they used nuclear weapons, which in turn created certain deterrence and helped prevent nuclear war. 

Quote
We got through that period because we followed certain rules under the gentleman's agreement that kept the US and the USSR from annihilating each other

What "gentleman's agreement"?  The only unspoken agreement I can fathom is the one where both sides agreed that they did not want to use nuclear weapons and only kept them to prevent the other side from using them.  Hence, a "gentleman's agreement" against first use.  This agreement did not come into play until enough scares occurred in the Soviet Union to encourage leadership that the use of nuclear weapons was suicide and keeping nuclear weapons only increased risk. 

Quote
even while carrying out despicable acts in the name of defeating the other - acts far worse cumulatively than what we're seeing in Ukraine, as appalling as it is.

It's true.  What the Soviets, Chicoms, Khmer Rouge, NVA, and Viet Cong did were indeed despicable and appalling. 

Quote
We didn't shoot Russian helicopters out of the sky in Afghanistan, and they were committing the same atrocities there.

Same atrocities maybe, but not the same geopolitical strategic situation. 

In 1980, what forces were Carter, or Reagan in 1981, supposed to commit to fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?  Was there a friendly government there fighting for it's life?  A government that we had ties to?  That we had an established supply route with? 

Let's look at this realistically.  In 1981, before the DoD expansion under Reagan, the main enemy was the Soviet Union.  That was the enemy center of gravity and the plan was to concentrate in West Germany.  Any movement of forces away from this center of gravity would have drawn forces away from the built up OpPlan.  Why do that?  Why fight the Soviets in Afghanistan?  To set up what?  With what allies?  Pakistan? 

The situation in 2022 is much different.  Here Russia is attacking straight onto NATO's front porch.  This is in fact the fight that the Army, Navy, and Air Force of the 1980s was built to fight, which was then unleashed on a hapless Iraq in 1991.  This is it.  The ghost of Norman Schwarzkopf has an erection.  This is why former SACEURs like Joulwan and Clarke are some of the only voices saying "let's go".  The Cold War didn't end.  It was just paused and then Western Europe didn't want to play anymore.  All the *censored* that the Soviet Union caused for 80 years and all the *censored* that Russia has been causing over the last 14 and all the *censored* that it would like to cause over the next 100 years comes down to 2022.  Russia can be defeated now, and never be the seed for further problems in the world again. 

Quote
But never ever having an American hand on the button that launched them, at least not provably.

I'm going to repeat that there is nothing magical about an American soldier killing a Russian soldier that automatically leads to nuclear war.  The war plans developed by the Warsaw Pact only began to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the 1960s because the NATO forces were so weak it was stated and assumed that NATO would use tac nukes first.  Key in on that.  The Warsaw Pact only planned to use tac nukes if NATO used them first.  They didn't need tac nukes to win.  And despite the plans to use tactical nukes against the Warsaw Pact, the idea that nuclear war was unwinnable war pretty strong in the US during the 60s and 70s.  The "Seven Days to the Rhine" scenario was centered around NATO first use of nuclear weapons. 

Quote
Russian was contained by Nato in Europe.

NATO containment depends on the concept that American soldiers, airmen, and sailors would fight Russians and kill Russians despite their having nuclear weapons.  The "inevitability" of the current situation is that Russia is losing and will continue to lose in the long run, even if they do manage to take the Donbas, which is exactly what would happen if the United States enters the war today.  The decision point isn't "an American has killed a Russian, nuke them", it's "we are losing and there is no other way to stop losing than using a tactical nuclear weapon to force negotiations".  That is the only way that Russia can use nuclear weapons and not lose worse than they already will. 

Quote
Then we retaliate with strikes on non-capital Russian cities. Pressure builds. Maybe Putin says its time for a nuke, or maybe the command and control isn't airtight and a Russian general decides its time. That can't go unanswered, so St. Petersburg gets melted. Somebody realizes the trajectory of this escalation, and goes for the full strike before the other guy can do it.

This is word salad that makes no strategic sense.  Why would NATO retaliate on Russian cities in response to conventional cruise missile attacks?  It makes better sense to retaliate against the missile launchers and missile depots.  If Pooter decides to pull the trigger with a tactical nuclear weapon, why would NATO respond against a strategic target like St. Petersburg?  It makes better sense to hit another tactical target like an airfield or supply depot or troop concentration.  This is just fear.  This is "don't poke the bear in the cage, because then the bear is going to pick the lock and then go to the pawn shop and buy a 12 gauge shotgun and hotwire a Mazda Miata and come to your house and shoot you in the middle of the night after climbing down your chimney".  It's unrealistic.   

Quote
It's a horrible choice. If one of your children falls out of a lifeboat, do you dive in to try to save them or do you stay and protect the other kids that are still in the boat?

Most parents dive in, depending on their ability to swim. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #478 on: April 14, 2022, 03:18:03 PM »
Quote
Quote
even while carrying out despicable acts in the name of defeating the other - acts far worse cumulatively than what we're seeing in Ukraine, as appalling as it is.

It's true.  What the Soviets, Chicoms, Khmer Rouge, NVA, and Viet Cong did were indeed despicable and appalling.

But not our puppets, eh? Putting Pinochet in power wasn't appalling? Bombing Cambodia? Your white hat is looking a little smudged, my self-described neocon. Even today, we're best buddies with Erdogan due to his sweet geographical location, you think he's throwing tea parties? He's committed war crimes in Syria that don't look that terribly different from Russians in the Donbas, do they?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #479 on: April 14, 2022, 03:49:44 PM »
If going to war in Ukraine is warranted, Grant, is it because of the violation of a sovereign border, or because of the human rights violation? If the Russians were doing a clean fight, protecting civilians, etc, would that change the calculus on your idea that the U.S. should get in there and help?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #480 on: April 14, 2022, 04:26:26 PM »
Maybe end of humanity is hyperbole, but I'll throw Ukraine's millions under the bus rather than commit to an order of magnitude more.

The only way to limit the killing is to surrender.  You're going to have to figure out what you will fight for.  Sounds like to me you've already figured it out, though. 

Quote
Maybe end of humanity is hyperbole, but I'll throw Ukraine's millions under the bus rather than commit to an order of magnitude more. In this case, sure other humans will survive, but largely at pre-industrial levels. Africa won't do very well when many of the parts that they need to run will be toast.

I'm glad that we've moved on from "end of humanity" to "pre-industrial levels".  Give it some more time and I think we will continue to make progress, as soon as you understand your fears are mostly unjustified. 

Quote
The world is in a collective spasm just from losing Russian oil, what happens when North American and North Sea production is also severely disrupted? You don't even need nukes to get to 100 million dead.

Oh, we might get there already, due to disruption of food production and export from Ukraine and Russia. 

Quote
I'll gladly take another Vietnam and an estimated over that. In that case, China did roll in and fought US troops directly.

It's amazing.  Nobody nuked anybody. 

Quote
And there was a lot of talk about the US using nukes, and look up Fracture Jaw for how close we came to breaking the nuclear seal.

Fracture Jaw went nowhere fast. 

Quote
Your white hat is looking a little smudged, my self-described neocon.

It's true, I do think the United States and Americans are the good guys.  I don't deny it.  I will defend that view.  The United States has done some pretty bad stuff.  The list is pretty big.  Despite all that, we're nowhere near as bad as Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Pooter's Russia, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria, the Viet Cong/Viet Minh, the Khmer Rouge, the Chicoms.  If you don't think so, try to imagine a world where any of those powers are the dominant superpower in the world. 

Pinochet was pretty bad.  But nowhere near as bad as Stalin or Hitler.  Yes, there were civilian casualties when we bombed NVA concentrations in Cambodia.  But we didn't kill nearly as many as the Khmer Rouge.  I'm not pleased with Erdogan.  I'm even less pleased with the Saudis in Yemen.  But I don't think they're anywhere near as bad as what Pooter is doing in Ukraine or what the Chinese did to Tibet. 

I'm sorry if you cannot differentiate between the magnitudes of *censored*ry.  But I'd rather wear a smudged white hat than wear none at all, and it's definitely better than a black hat. 


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #481 on: April 14, 2022, 04:46:06 PM »
Quote
It's a horrible choice. If one of your children falls out of a lifeboat, do you dive in to try to save them or do you stay and protect the other kids that are still in the boat?

Quote
Most parents dive in, depending on their ability to swim.

More likely to dive as a reaction to the situation. When the water is freezing and choppy a response to the situation might be the reasoned approach vice a emotional reaction.

“The first casualty of any battle is the plan of attack.”
All the speculation of what if we did this our that... one thing is certain the outcome would be different then what was planned.

War in unpredictable and so Putin a foolish man.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #482 on: April 14, 2022, 05:00:35 PM »
If going to war in Ukraine is warranted, Grant, is it because of the violation of a sovereign border, or because of the human rights violation? If the Russians were doing a clean fight, protecting civilians, etc, would that change the calculus on your idea that the U.S. should get in there and help?

I think this is difficult to say.  I would like to say both or neither. 

I think I can simplify that saying that we should go to war with Russia over Ukraine because the results of Russia winning, or losing slowly, in Ukraine is detrimental to the lives, world security, and economic stability of so much of the world AND because we can win very easily and keep all these negative actions from occurring.  It comes down to death and destruction and instability.  All of that together is a bigger reason than any one single reason by itself.  I don't think Russia would be Pooter's Russia without some of the human rights violations.  It kinda goes hand in hand with why Russia is our enemy, whether you want to see it or not. 

But let's play some games.  Let's say the United Kingdom invades Assad's Syria, for human rights violations.  And the UK keeps it clean, protecting civilians etc.  In this particular case, I'm not terribly upset about the violation of sovereignty unless it's a bad habit and ends up creating worse situations.  Or let's say France invades the UK and keeps it clean, over I dunno, fishing rights.  Kinda crazy.  Even if France keeps it clean, I would suggest siding with the UK, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around this scenario.  It's out of character. 

Even if Pooter's Russia kept things clean in Ukraine, I would still see the assault on sovereignty as destabilizing.  I would see it as a threat to the world and if it succeeded I would suggest it would embolden other world powers with designs on neighbors.  I think that in itself is cause for the United States to go to war being as it is in our interests to have world stability.  I think that preventing war and ending wars is in America's interests for many reasons, because it leads to humanitarian problems.  So it always comes down to humanitarian reasons. 

I'm under no illusions that war is something clean.  But there are degrees of dirty. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #483 on: April 14, 2022, 05:23:51 PM »
More likely to dive as a reaction to the situation. When the water is freezing and choppy a response to the situation might be the reasoned approach vice a emotional reaction.

I mean, we can create all kinds of different scenarios, but I will stand by my original claim, because morality and parenthood and love are all emotionally governed things. 

Human beings have different levels of risk assessment and risk tolerance.  Some people run from fires, some would say wisely, and some others run towards them.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #484 on: April 14, 2022, 05:25:32 PM »
Grant, it sounds like your main criterion is stability, and if the action increases stability over inaction then do it; the violence (i.e. attacking another country) is justified by the material gains the attack will gain, which can include security, wealth, etc. So it's not so much about atrocities, at least not the way you're making it sound. I just wanted to know. If you had said it was about the atrocities my next question was going to be why not attack China, but based on your answer your concepts don't point toward that as a necessary conclusion.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #485 on: April 14, 2022, 05:58:28 PM »
More likely to dive as a reaction to the situation. When the water is freezing and choppy a response to the situation might be the reasoned approach vice a emotional reaction.

I mean, we can create all kinds of different scenarios, but I will stand by my original claim, because morality and parenthood and love are all emotionally governed things. 

Human beings have different levels of risk assessment and risk tolerance.  Some people run from fires, some would say wisely, and some others run towards them.

In the scenario a parent diving in to save one child while putting in danger their other children left in the boat as a reaction to the "emotionally governed thing"s, vice a response, likely does not involve a conscious risk assessment.

A emotional reaction being more likely to lead to unintended consciences then a  thought out response. That said as it comes to war unintended consequences are the only sure thing. 


I understand what your point is and I'm not sure your wrong with your argument to put boots on the ground to help Ukraine... its a huge gamble and I don't think anyone has any insight into Putin's head. His ability to hold sway over his people and shape thier experience of reality is amazing. How do we confront that without turning the world to ash. A outcome I'm not sure Putin is concerned with.

What does that SOB want?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #486 on: April 14, 2022, 06:26:39 PM »
Grant, it sounds like your main criterion is stability, and if the action increases stability over inaction then do it; the violence (i.e. attacking another country) is justified by the material gains the attack will gain, which can include security, wealth, etc. So it's not so much about atrocities, at least not the way you're making it sound. I just wanted to know. If you had said it was about the atrocities my next question was going to be why not attack China, but based on your answer your concepts don't point toward that as a necessary conclusion.

Well, the thing with China comes back to 1) can it be done? and 2) would it make things better? 

There is not a whole bunch we can do for the Uighurs or other *censored*ty stuff China does.  You would have to invade China.  Topple the government.  Occupy China.  That's impossible.  It just can't be done. 

As bad as things are there, an invasion of China would make things bad for billions of people.  Even if it were possible.  Invading China isn't like invading Iraq, Iran, or Syria.  It's CHINA.  (Or CHYNUH) as L'Orange would say. 

On the other hand, a war with China that was just about stopping Chinese ability to threaten their neighbors, a naval or air war, that could lead to more stability and is doable. 

But let's look at Syria.  Serious humanitarian problems there.  Assad is a murderer extraordinaire.  I'd love to have invaded Syria if I thought it could work out.  But we were overextended already, nobody had any faith in intervention, and there were too many useful idiots sucking up propaganda.  I would have loved if we could have just targeted the *censored* and rubbed him out.  What has happened in Syria has not been good for regional stability, but it's hard to say how any meaningful intervention would have really helped, even if it's limited to just killing Assad.  But I support it because he's an *censored* and needs to die.  It's that simple. I can't even say there is a good chance of making things better.  All I can say for certain is that when people get away with being a mass murderer, it encourages others to do the same. 

But there are plenty of people like that.  Stalin.  Mao. Amin.  Some of them you can take down one way or another.  Others you can't.  Can't really do *censored* about Stalin or Mao.  Same really with Pooter.

I'm not saying it's impossible for things to have worked out in Syria.  But given America's track record recently at occupation and nation building, and the lack of faith in the same.  It's like looking at an impressive hill and saying "hell yeah we can take that hill".  Then you turn around and everyone on your team is an asthmatic in a wheel chair.  I mean, technically you can take the hill, but maybe not with the people you have.  You look into a particularly dirty warehouse floor, and say "hell yeah we can clean this place up", and you turn around and your team are all armed with toothbrushes and water pistols instead of mops and brooms.  Technically you should be able to clean that dirty floor, but not with the tools at your disposal. 

The key here is to do what you are able to do.  The easier it is the more you should do it.  One of the main selling points for the whole Ukrainian affair, to me, is how easy it would have been to prevent it or shorten it or win it.  Just send the USAF and it's over in a week.  It's that simple.  The biggest risk you have is deciding whether to attack targets in mother Russia or not.  Maybe Pooter tac nukes Poland.  It's possible that at some point the additional deaths would be greater than the deaths prevented.  That's why it would have been best to enter the war earlier.  Every day they are running out of more Ukrainians to kill or rape.  Beyond half of America and Europe *censored*ting themselves if a tac nuke goes off, it would be the single greatest disaster in American military history since Pearl Harbor.  And to stop it we'd have to nuke a Russian airbase or supply depot.  More dead.  But Russia still loses.  Now they're a pariah nation.  They'll be more cut off than North Korea.  Even the Germans and Hungarians will abandon them if they use nuclear weapons. Third world countries will have it better than Russia.  So it's likely they will not use them at all.  But they will threaten to, which they have already and continue to do so every day in state run media. 






rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #487 on: April 14, 2022, 06:36:22 PM »
Quote
Just send the USAF and it's over in a week.  It's that simple.  The biggest risk you have is deciding whether to attack targets in mother Russia or not
I don't think that is the biggest risk?

I think Putin needs to be taken out of the picture for any 'success' scenario, and that that would be the biggest risk.
How do you do it without him going suicidal and taking as many people with him as possible.

The SOB plays by his own rules. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #488 on: April 14, 2022, 07:00:35 PM »
I don't think that is the biggest risk?

I think Putin needs to be taken out of the picture for any 'success' scenario, and that that would be the biggest risk.
How do you do it without him going suicidal and taking as many people with him as possible.

The SOB plays by his own rules.

No.  You just have to convince Pooter that the best thing for him and for Russia is to leave Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe alone.  Carrot and stick.  Leave Ukraine and Crimea.  Stop threatening Eastern Europe. Gas stays on. Sanctions lifted.  No reparations.  No demands for his arrest or trial or whatever.  *censored*, give him a 2million euro dacha in Switzerland and make him Grand Duke of some place in Montenegro. 

All you have to do, is convince him, that WINNING means leaving Ukraine.  Staying in Ukraine means LOSING, for Russia and for Pooter personally. 

Quote
What does that SOB want?

What all of them want.  Power and respect.  It was the same with Wilhelm II and Hitler.  All three believed that at some point they had been humiliated by inferior people.  That they were not being given their due power and respect.  That they were being kept from what was rightfully THEIRS.  For Pooter it was the humiliation of the 1990s.  Having to drive a taxi after being an agent of the vaunted KGB.  For Hitler it was the humiliation of the loss of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.  For Wilhelm it was those dirty French and English who were conspiring to encircle him and Germany, keeping them from their rightful place in the world.  From the respect he was due as the most powerful monarch in the world.  I mean, it's straight out of a cartoon.  It's straight out of Venture Brothers.  I don't know the name of the psychological disorder, but it's there. 


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #489 on: April 14, 2022, 07:27:42 PM »
Quote
All you have to do, is convince him, that WINNING means leaving Ukraine.

convince me: How do we do that

What all of them want.  Power and respect.

How certain are you that his is the Putin's motivation My own impression is that the SOB doesn't care about respect, not as a driving force anyway. And I'm not sure his relationship to the idea of power is. I think the power he thrives in is tied into his ability to define the 'realty'  of so many people. truth doesn't mater, facts don't matter. Realty is something he shapes and creates despite facts, reason... Its something he has boosted of. Something Trump most admired about him.  That's power we have not seen the like of before.

I think its a mistake to compare Putin with figures in the past and assume he wants and so will react in the same way. I think we are dealing with a new type of personality  here.

What makes you think the Pooter to the values of power, respect etc in the way we traditionally think such SOB's do? 
« Last Edit: April 14, 2022, 07:35:48 PM by rightleft22 »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #490 on: April 15, 2022, 10:27:52 AM »
convince me: How do we do that

Like I said:  carrot and stick.  Pooter still thinks he can pull out a win and hold the Donbas, then he can escalate to descalate or just hold on.  But I think he's starting to realize he may not be able to do that as well unless he's thinking of a long war into this fall, which again may play against him.  I know he pulled up another 60,000 reserves and new conscriptions are up, but it will take time to train the new conscripts.  Previously, Russia wasn't even supposed to be using conscripts in Ukraine but I think that bubble has popped. 

Quote
How certain are you that his is the Putin's motivation

Look, man... I'm not a clinical psychologist.  I will cop to that.  I'm making my best educated guess based on my knowledge of these people.  I don't think I have any more evidence other than what I have already given.  Some people may have other theories. 

Quote
I think its a mistake to compare Putin with figures in the past and assume he wants and so will react in the same way. I think we are dealing with a new type of personality  here.

I mean, if you're a clinical psychologist, lay some cards out.  Otherwise all I can say is that I think it is a fallacy to somehow assume that Pooter is special in some way.  It's more likely to me that he is just more of the same. 

Quote
What makes you think the Pooter to the values of power, respect etc in the way we traditionally think such SOB's do?

Again, I am assuming that he is not special or unique, because he is far from being the first to do things that he is doing.  He has stated his aims.  He has written and spoken about his motivations and his past.  The guy isn't exactly a cipher.  That said, I'm not a clinical psychologist. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #491 on: April 15, 2022, 10:52:33 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/14/russia-warns-us-stop-arming-ukraine/

After Grandpa President outlines some more arms shipments to Ukraine, Russia sends a nasty-gram. 

Not exactly an ultimatum, it seems.  I havn't seen an actual copy.  Just a warning of unintended consequences.  Russian state media are already calling it "World War 3!TM".  Russia vs NATO.  Seems they are playing by a different set of rules than Joe Snuffy sitting on his lay-z-boy in Dayton, OH. 

Whomever the reporters are talking to seem to believe it may mean the Russians will start targeting NATO supply convoys in Ukraine or NATO weapons depots in Poland.  Curious what would happen if Russia missile attacks Poland (their planes won't make it).  I mean, I have been made to understand that if NATO troops fight Russian troops than we're going to be in "World War 3!TM", which will lead to the world sliding into pre-industrial levels of technology.  Looking to see L'Orange made King of Florida.  Maybe he has DeSantis on a leash like Channing Tatum in 'This is the End". 

Most likely Poland tries to Article 5 but Joe Snuffy in Dayton, OH doesn't feel like risking nuclear de-industrialization. 

Nevertheless, America needs to wake up to the fact that we're in July of 1941.  Wanting to stay out of the war but strangling Japan while shipping arms to China isn't going to fly forever.  Especially when Russia is blaming losing on the NATO support.  Right now, there is some dude in Moscow figuring out how to knock out America with a single strike. 

Edited for spelling mistake
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 11:01:17 AM by Grant »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #492 on: April 15, 2022, 11:16:45 AM »
Not a clinical psychologist, so no cards. You may be right, maybe the Pooter isn't a cipher and has always been hiding plain sight.

In my opinion f the SOB has a supper power its his gaslighting skills, he can and will work this to his own good and declare however this end a victory. I'm not convinced he cares how it ends.... I think he's board and wants to see if he can do just one more time. But your right that is neither here no their just thoughts from someone who sees this whole business as absurd.  It makes no rational sense to me.

What has the Pooter achieved  so far?  He has made Russia more venerable. Russian military prowess has been shown to be less then what most people imaged.
Russia (its people) gain nothing even if they take Ukraine
Yet if the SOB survives I'm going to bet that in a year or two the Republican party will hold him up as a positive example of how to lead a nation just as they are starting to do with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. This is how the dictator gains power, the people fooled to sell their freedom for the notion of freedom which is really to hold the 'other' down. Surprised the day we discover we are all the other.  Never ends well. But such is the path

Maybe your right and we need to put a stop to this now and engaging on the ground with Ukraine. A full on defeat of the Pooter.
Sadly I think the di is cast. . 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 11:27:15 AM by rightleft22 »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #493 on: April 15, 2022, 11:18:56 AM »
Hey Grant,

I live in Dayton OH and give Joe a break.  We have Wright Patterson AFB and would have a large number of nukes heading our way in WWIII

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #494 on: April 15, 2022, 11:19:00 AM »
If Poland is attacked its War III

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #495 on: April 15, 2022, 11:42:55 AM »
I live in Dayton OH and give Joe a break.  We have Wright Patterson AFB and would have a large number of nukes heading our way in WWIII

Well I didn't know your name or I would have used IT instead.   ;D

No offense to Wright-Patt, or the men and women of the AFMC or 88th ABW, but I think there are other places on the target list that may get higher priority. 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #496 on: April 15, 2022, 11:54:05 AM »
Actually I think we are high on the list because we can land B-52's on our runways.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #497 on: April 15, 2022, 11:58:03 AM »
Actually I think we are high on the list because we can land B-52's on our runways.

Yeah, but wouldn't it make sense to just blow up the B-52s at Barksdale?  I mean, you could probably land B-52s at any international airport in the US if you had to. 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #498 on: April 15, 2022, 12:10:13 PM »
Not too sure about that.

From Wikipedia

A runway of at least 1,800 m (5,900 ft) in length is usually adequate for aircraft weights below approximately 100,000 kg (220,000 lb). Larger aircraft including widebodies will usually require at least 2,400 m (7,900 ft) at sea level. International widebody flights, which carry substantial amounts of fuel and are therefore heavier, may also have landing requirements of 3,200 m (10,500 ft) or more and takeoff requirements of 4,000 m (13,000 ft). The Boeing 747 is considered to have the longest takeoff distance of the more common aircraft types and has set the standard for runway lengths of larger international airports. [35]

I would think a fully loaded long distance bomber like the B-52 might need even longer.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #499 on: April 15, 2022, 12:44:01 PM »
Not too sure about that.

I would think a fully loaded long distance bomber like the B-52 might need even longer.

So, best I can tell, from a question on Quora answered by an ex B-52 navigator, a B-52 needs about 13,000 ft to take off for a training flight with bombs and fuel.  A fact sheet says a B-52 needs 4km to takeoff.  Note that you can take off light on fuel and aerial refuel to make things easier. 

According to Wikipedia, 5L/23 R at Wright Patt goes 12600 ft or   Pretty close.  Note that 15/33 at Barksdale only goes 11,738 ft.  A List of the longest airfields in the US shows 28 airfields with lengths longer than 4 km.  According to a webpage by index mundi, the US has 425 airports with paved runways longer than 2,438 meters. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 12:46:02 PM by Grant »