SL Xpress

I don't really care if you're wrong or right. I just know it's not realistically going to happen. So I'll leave you to it. He was easily going to be my favorite coach of all time, in any sport. I was fully on board. But he fucked up. I don't see how we get anyone ever who was going to be a better fit for us than pre felony assault arrest Chris Beard. It's pretty simple. Don't make all the decisions that led to getting arrested by the police for felony assault. It wasn't just one. It was a series of them made over the course of at least 6 years. I'm very sad it happened, but it did. I'd say good luck with his next job, but I actually want him to completely implode Hindenburg style, without all the fiery victims involved.

I don't know the answer, but my opinion is the stuff is already funded by the bill passed last year. I also continue to believe there's enough bipartisan support something can be done this year. But the political machinations are more complicated than they were last year. The first priority is figuring out how to pass an annual budget and figure out the debt ceiling stuff. That affects financially supporting Ukraine, but by necessity takes priority and has its own power dynamics around it. I'm not arguing for or against either side of the issue. I've made it clear I'm a one issue guy at this point. It does make sense to me to forward deploy as much as possible, for all kinds of reasons, including the ones you're stating. But mostly because if the funding is already there - which it is based on the bill passed last year (to my knowledge, anyway) - and the president gives his authorization, why not have it already in Germany or Poland or where ever, rather than in the United States, if you know it's going to Ukraine at some point anyway.

You act as if Ukraine has been an independent country its entire existence. If not for the Orange and Maidan Revolutions, that's exactly what would have happened, and the West wouldn't have done a damn thing about it. If Russia hadn't stupidly invaded for what amounts to a religious tribal jihad, they would have still been able to greatly influence matters in Ukraine simply by massing hundreds of thousands of troops on the border, without actually getting them all killed. And again, there was going to be very little the West was going to do. This red line you're creating in your head doesn't actually exist. It never has.

The Chris Beard sweepstakes begins. The good news is that whoever gets him knocks out a competitor for whoever Texas might go after. Unless Terry makes a deep run and we end up keeping him on instead. Also, the basketball staff will be gutted whenever Beard lands at his next job. That's a guarantee.

Okay, so apparently Atesh is a partisan group based out of Crimea made up mostly of Crimean Tatars. Which makes the "Atesh school" even more hilarious.

I want to be clear I'm not arguing with you. I'm fully on board. That said, here's me echoing other people's objections who have a voice in this: 1) "That's Europe's problem." 2) "Sounds like our farmers would do quite well." The good news is the support is there. But counting on it being at the level it is currently with representative governments in charge of policy is not smart. That's not how it works. And again, Ukraine being in an attritional battle is not healthy for the future of that country. Having the ability to kick out the Russians is going to take a lot more material than has been sent thus far. The political will needs to match that. I'm not saying it won't. I'm saying the more times passes, the greater the chance the political will lessens, not grows.

I don't pretend to know the exact theories being put into place, but I can make some guesses. First of all, there's no way there's one voice in the administration making all the calls on Ukraine. There are a lot of voices in the room, and sometimes one is going to carry more weight than others. That's not unique to this administration. That's group dynamics at play. Who can be the loudest and most effective voice is sometimes about ability, charisma, and having the most compelling arguments. But sometimes it's about timing. Arguments that don't hold sway a year ago suddenly become more compelling. Or a more hawkish voice that people listen to a couple of months ago is now overshadowed for whatever reason by another voice preaching more caution. Second of all, there's more reservations about funding Ukraine's efforts in Congress than there were a year ago. Big ticket items like F-16 aircraft (or even Abrams tanks) may be seen as not in Ukraine's best interests as opposed to Bradleys/Strykers, air defense systems, lots of ammunition, sundry supplies, and more ammunition. If no choice has to be made, that's one thing. But if choices do have to be made with a limited amount of resources, F-16s may start falling down the priority list real quick. As far as a slow release, the alternative is a massive shipment of arms and equipment Ukraine is neither logistically, tactically, or strategically able to take advantage of, and given limited resources, may mean the US can't supply something that becomes more important later on as the circumstances on the battlefield shift. To me the slow release procedure the US has been following is the only approach that makes the most sense, frankly. I've said this before, and knowing me I'll say it dozens of more times. Both sides of this conflict are operating with time pressures. On the Russian side they can only count on this war continuing as long as Putin is in power. As soon as he dies, everything in Russia goes cuckoo. Even if someone else takes his place rather quickly - which I seriously doubt will happen given his purposeful lack of a succession plan to prioritize he stays in power - they'll also have to secure power. We may very easily see a rapid succession of Russian leaders until someone secures power on a more permanent basis. But leadership matters, whether it's the football coach, the CEO, the president, or the head of the local literacy group. When there's a change in leadership, there's a huge danger the whole dynamic changes. Unless you're Ohio State football, in which case it doesn't matter who is in charge. For Ukraine, they are supported by a bunch of representative governments. Peaceful transitions of power are representative governments' superpower, but they're also their kryptonite. If you're the party not in power, there's not a lot of credit you're going to get for supporting the party in power in whatever they're trying to achieve. It doesn't work that way. So there's always going to be the incentive to go against what the party in power is doing, in hopes of winning support for that position. You're not going to get a parking place following behind another car in a crowded parking lot. You have to forge a different path. In addition, the United States as a people don't actually give a rat's ass about what goes on in the rest of the world. They just don't. They never have. So there's a lot of hay to be made by appealing to Americans' natural isolationist tendencies. But the same kind of dynamic can occur anywhere. Without the West's ongoing support, Ukraine doesn't stand a chance. Wars are about resources, and Russia, even in a depleted state, simply has a much greater means of prosecuting this war than Ukraine does if forced to stand by itself. I don't care how brave the Ukrainian soldiers are - and they're incredibly brave. If they don't have the equipment, they're going to get rolled over. Even a stalemate is at Ukraine's disadvantage (excepting the above point that when Putin dies everything changes). Their country has been methodically destroyed. They've lost a huge proportion of their population, which may or may not return. An attritional war affects Ukraine proportionately worse than it does Russia. But even beyond that, there's a cultural fatalism and nihilism in Russia that Ukraine with its Western aspirations doesn't have. They actually value human life in a way Russia does not. For that reason among many I'd love to see Ukraine have the means to make some decisive gains to possibly limit Russian forces to the eastern Donbas region, where the only reason they're not driven out completely is because no encirclement is realistically possible any more. An attritional war favors Russia and it's national ethos much more than Ukraine, IMO.

How exactly does the UN send peacekeepers with Russia able to veto it in the security council? That’s not how that works. Generally when peacekeepers go into an area they are basically eunuchs. They don’t take any active part in the fighting so as not to jeopardize their “neutral” status. They’re often not all that terrific of troops, either, depending on which country chose to send them. None of that is a feasible solution. Basically any activity by the UN - for example the work being done to ensure the nuclear power plants are safe - is done with the cooperation of all parties. Specifically when one of those parties gets a permanent veto at the security council level. Maybe a UN peacekeeping force can be deployed as part of the cessation of hostilities? But even then it would be highly doubtful. It’s sure not going to happen right now in any form. And specifically as air defense crew? Nope nope nope. Even NATO crews aren’t going to happen. Nobody wants their troops on the ground in Ukraine in a combat status, which manning air defense system on Ukrainian soil most certainly is. At most it would all be done under the table, with volunteers going over there to join the fight on their own initiative, similar to American pilots who joined both world wars prior to the US entering the fight.

How exactly does the UN send peacekeepers with Russia able to veto it in the security council? That’s not how that works. Generally when peacekeepers go into an area they are basically eunuchs. They don’t take any active part in the fighting so as not to jeopardize their “neutral” status. They’re often not all that terrific of troops, either, depending on which country chose to send them. None of that is a feasible solution. Basically any activity by the UN - for example the work being done to ensure the nuclear power plants are safe - is done with the cooperation of all parties. Specifically when one of those parties gets a permanent veto at the security council level. Maybe a UN peacekeeping force can be deployed as part of the cessation of hostilities? But even then it would be highly doubtful. It’s sure not going to happen right now in any form. And specifically as air defense crew? Nope nope nope. Even NATO crews aren’t going to happen. Nobody wants their troops on the ground in Ukraine in a combat status, which manning air defense system on Ukrainian soil most certainly is. At most it would all be done under the table, with volunteers going over there to join the fight on their own initiative, similar to American pilots who joined both world wars prior to the US entering the fight.

Financial Times reporting Russia amassing fixed and rotary wing aircraft at the border. Also, numerous reports also reflected here that Switzerland and Brazil refuse to supply some of their Gepard ammunition to Ukraine. Rheinmetall is allegedly building a new factory and will start their first shipments of ammunition in July. Maybe reconfiguring an existing factory? That seems like a dubious time line to me, but if the Germans say they're going to do something by a certain time, I tend to believe them. Something at the end about the US possibly allowing other countries to provide F-16s eventually, but the priority right now is air defense systems and lots of ammunition. https://www.ft.com/content/3fd6e91f-71e4-4c02-9360-be20a2a78763

Here's a two hour interview with an operational planner from the famous (infamous?) Azov battalion that held Mariupol for 86 days after being encircled (and only surrendered under direct orders). From the interview I learned about Stepan Razin, I learned about the heroes of Kruty, and I was reacquainted with the performance artist Pavlensky. Plus a whole lot more. I highly recommend it, but I'll be honest. I did not make it through the whole thing in one sitting. But it was an absolutely fascinating look into the mind of a major combatant, who survived the siege of Azovstal, months of captivity with the Russians, and is even now planning to return to the front with the objective of taking as many enemy prisoners as possible to use as exchanges for the Azov prisoners still held captive. He also gives a somewhat chilling reassurance that the people who committed the massacre of the Azov prisoners of war are known and will be accounted for.

Well, I sure don't mind you deleting the post. I don't have a big emotional investment in the political party catfight. I'm just concerned with the politics that are going to affect the support for the Ukrainian war. But delete away as far as I'm concerned. Not that I have a say in the matter, lol. But I'm 100% supportive for whatever that's worth.

I mean, there's the home run right there. Augie was 58 when he took the job. Jay Wright would be 61. I don't know how long golden handcuffs would tie him to the job, but I wouldn't care. There are certain names that feel like a hail mary that you have to at least give your best shot towards. Both Wright and Donovan fit that category for me. I don't consider either of them realistic options, but they've both been multiple title winners not currently married to a collegiate job. It mostly feels like a forlorn hope. My most realistic expectation right now is Tommy Lloyd. As a fan I'd love to have the opportunity to roll the dice with him as the head coach. Not sure if he leaves Arizona, but I've been told we're ready right now to pay $6m per year for the right person. That's a lot of cheese. That's before we even enter negotiations with someone and find out it's going to take more cheddar. But a lot of the alternatives either have huge buyouts, or like Musselman, deep pocketed backers with a program and fanbase who are more intense about winning at basketball than Texas is. But Jay Wright would be the dream.

When Durant came to campus on his recruiting visit he scrimmaged with PJ Tucker, LaMarcus Aldridge, Daniel Gibson and Mike Williams, all of whom departed before he got to campus. He literally told everyone after the trip, "We're going to win a national championship!" For the 2006-7 roster, 4 freshmen started. AJ Abrams and Connor Atchley also received significant minutes. They were both sophomores. Durant, Augustin, and Abrams all averaged over 35mpg. Hill and Pittman - two more freshmen - played 11mpg and 5mpg respectively. Craig Winder, another sophomore, played 7mpg. Overall it's the youngest team to win a tournament game in NCAA history. Way younger than the fabled Fab Five, who obviously had a lot more success their first year. It's honestly one of Barnes' best coaching jobs. It's unbelievable how young that team was. It's no wonder they became better after Durant left. They were all a year older and much better prepared. I told everyone at the time the team was going to be way better after losing Durant, and everyone said I was on crack. It's not BECAUSE Durant left. That team is a national championship contender if he stupidly returned for another year. It's because everyone got needed experience and so they were better prepared for the season even though Durant was gone. I think Gibson went too early. Without a doubt in my mind Tucker left too early. Williams ended up being a 5* bust who transferred to Alabama and just didn't pan out. But he sure would have helped if he'd stayed at Texas. Aldridge obviously needed to go. It's all worked out for everyone. But even just having Tucker on that team would have helped so much.

I don't care what party someone is from. Just keep funding Ukraine's military efforts. That's literally where I'm coming from.

This is going off topic, but when you say its owned by a foreign national, whom do you mean? In 1985, Rupert Murdoch became a US citizen. Do you have someone else in mind?

This is the internet, sir.

Here's a link to the entire interview. I think it's a great read. Thanks to wartranslated/Volodya Treytyak for the translation. https://wartranslated.com/pravda-com-ua-interview-ukrainian-colonel-oleh-faydyuk/ It's fun to read a different perspective. Especially someone who grew up with a Communist era education. "For the French or Americans, it takes six months to train on the M777. Ours takes 2-3 weeks." Uh...I think the realities of the situation are a bit different. But I don't blame the guy for being proud. A little out of kilter with reality, but understandably proud. ___________________________________________ "The divizion [18 howitzers] was divided into batteries [6 howitzers], and each battery was responsible for its own area. The only thing we had trouble with was the distance between the batteries. (I): Was it too big? (O): Yes. According to the rules of engagement, as described in military literature, the distance between batteries should be no more than five kilometers, ten kilometers at most. But we managed 20, 40, 50, 60 kilometers. But thanks to this, the enemy could not inflict fire on us and destroy everyone in one shot. He did not even use missiles against us. Who would launch a missile for 100 thousand (or whatever the Iskander costs) at one gun? So there were only artillery duels – who would catch whom at the maximum range." ____________________________________________ Here he talks about the warehouses with ammunition that were destroyed around the Maidan Revolution: "(I): Mr. Oleh, but when warehouses were burning all over Ukraine before 2014 and especially after 2014 – Svatove, Balakliya, Kalynivka – including those with 122- and 152-caliber shells, did you have any doubts that it could be a deliberate sabotage? (O): I can only speculate here, and I don’t really want to do that. I can say that bad things that happen are not always the result of deliberate actions. For example, if an ammunition depot is not properly equipped, no funds are given for firefighting equipment, and the personnel or guards are paid little or are paid with delays… Then there is no need to “smoke in the wrong places” as the Katsaps are trolled. I don’t rule out the possibility that it was deliberate arson, but we can’t dismiss this version as negligence." ________________________________________ (I): Did you take part in the Kharkiv counteroffensive? (O): Yes, one of our divizions did. (I): How did it go? Where exactly did you help the infantry, and what tasks did you perform? (O): Near Izyum, the 62nd Division. And the 87th Anti-Tank Division did a lot of work. Unfortunately, Sergeant Serhiy Mishchenko, a man who personally destroyed 14 confirmed tanks and 27 armored vehicles – BMPs and APCs – was killed there. We submitted his documents for the title of Hero of Ukraine, but we did not have time to award it during his lifetime. (I): What did he work with? (O): He worked with Javelin. He was a god, a real god. He had six children, he could have avoided going to war altogether. And he was also a born talent – he figured out how to act on his own. I was already trying to get him to teach others rather than perform tasks himself. But he was always rushing forward. I told him: “Look, even under the best of circumstances, you can’t do all the work yourself. Train 5-10-15 people, even if they take out one tank or APC each, it will be more in total.” And he started teaching a little bit. And then it so happened that the Russians no longer had armored vehicles on the front line-they realized that Western precision anti-tank artillery was destroying them-and our guys had to go into the “gray” zone. And so Mishchenko went there and died. _____________________________________________ I'd never heard this phrase. As someone who knows a lot of people of Greek and Jewish descent in the Houston area, I found it noteworthy. (O): Trophies rarely reach the artillery because our infantry brothers are ahead. And where a Greek has passed, a Jew has nothing to do [smiles]. ______________________________________________ "Eighty percent of what Madyar [Robert Brovdi, an aerial reconnaissance man who runs the Magyar telegram channel] has been reporting in his telegrams, especially over the past two weeks, is our work. This is all our artillery. We’ve told him many times: sign it somehow that it’s us because we won’t hit, and you won’t have anything to post [laughs]." _____________________________________________ "Even according to NATO standards, according to the charter of the artillery of the US field army, there is no firing at a target that is not observed. The bourgeois know how to count money, and they calculated that this is very expensive." _______________________________________________ So much of that interview was fascinating. Not just the information, but what it revealed about his entire outlook. I'm glad I got a chance to read it.

Do you also think if you repeat a message over and over again it convinces other people you’re right? What happened to him at Texas will be brought up over and over again regardless of how much success elsewhere he ever achieves. And yes, Herman is still relevant. So is Strong, Brown, Mackovic, McWilliams, and Akers. And Royal is very relevant. If Texas goes on to become an elite basketball program, his relevancy will be minimized. But fight the good fight. I’m pretty indifferent to it. But I’m not going to stop posting about Beard no matter how you feel about it, so you do you. And no, I don’t believe Beard reads this board. I hope he doesn’t. I don’t think it’s healthy for people associated with these threads to read them. But regardless if they’re read by the subject or not, I find a catharsis around a big fuck you. Since your thoughts and feelings on the matter don’t make much difference for me, I still find satisfaction from it.

Well, count me in as a vote for liking it.

It doesn’t have to stop. His relevance will be dictated to some degree by what his career looks like after this. If he ends up never coaching again, his relevance will be minimal. If he coaches again and implodes for one reason or another, his relevance will be minimal. If the Texas basketball program attains elite status without him his relevance will be minimal. But if he goes on to have a hall of fame career and Texas flounders at an above average level while he’s doing so, he’s going to remain relevant regardless how many posts you make insisting it’s not so. Not to mention, if you’re the superstitious kind (I’m not), it’s working. I can’t see the P.B. shit lasting forever. For one thing, it won’t make sense after this season. But for now, I like it. If anything it’s a fuck you to Beard that the season is still on track despite his monumental fuck up.

Takes a little of the juice out of it with Chris Beard’s firing. Don’t get me wrong. It will still be a big deal for them, but it won’t be the same level of madhouse last year was.

The only witness is hostile and has provided written testimony through her attorney that what was written in the arrest charges was false and that she doesn’t want to press charges. District attorneys are notorious for not wanting to move forward with cases they don’t think they can win. If you have one witness and they don’t want to cooperate, you don’t have much of a case. Legally they can still move forward with it, but practically speaking the chances of it are close to nil. I’m going on the assumption it won’t make it to a jury trial, but even if it does, it will be tough to get a jury to convict him, simply based on her written testimony. But the likelihood we see Beard in front of a jury is just laughably small. It usually takes a while for this to wind through the justice system, though. “You may not do the time, but you’ll do the ride.” Even I believe his career is in limbo until the legal process reaches its conclusion.

It depends on how long it takes those domestic violence charges to get dropped.

Help me remember this conversation whenever someone replaces Calipari.