Ukraine War

[HenryJames 66049]

 

[Scheiss Meister 8407]

8 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If forced into combat, I think I want to be part of small squad operations of some sort. Maybe a spotter for a sniper (I'm a fair shot at best. Actually better with a bow when I've used one.} Something where you're hidden and flat on your stomach and not a priority target for guided munitions.

Fuck, the modern conventional battleground is a scary place. Respect to those who have served and either been on the battlefield or been ready to go to the battlefield. 

All sniper spotters are also snipers.  They trade time on the rifle and scope to guard against fatigue and complacency.  Also, once a sniper opens fire they become a high priority target.  During WWII it was common practice to call in artillery fire on snipers because they are so corrosive to morale.  Anyway, snipers are usually far more valuable collecting information and passing it on to command than shooting. 

Basically, no job is safe on a battlefield.  Others may get attention from the enemy before you do, but they'll get around to you.

[Biff Tannen 45683]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Everything fails in the long run. The Greeks recognized a cycle running from anarchy (chaos) to monarchy to democracy to anarchy to monarchy. We (literally we, I've though the same thing) have tended to believe that democracy is the end of the evolution of government. It's not. When the shit gets bad, the humans look for a single person with power to make things better. 

 

Remember this, it's very important.

[Brisketexan 105134]

Remember this, it's very important.

And sometimes, they purposefully make shit bad to justify their zeal for an authoritarian leader. Sometimes. Lots of times.

[Biff Tannen 45683]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And sometimes, they purposefully make shit bad to justify their zeal for an authoritarian leader. Sometimes. Lots of times.

[RomaVicta 29907]

12 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

All sniper spotters are also snipers.  They trade time on the rifle and scope to guard against fatigue and complacency.  Also, once a sniper opens fire they become a high priority target.  During WWII it was common practice to call in artillery fire on snipers because they are so corrosive to morale.  Anyway, snipers are usually far more valuable collecting information and passing it on to command than shooting. 

Basically, no job is safe on a battlefield.  Others may get attention from the enemy before you do, but they'll get around to you.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by RomaVicta

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

41 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Because that is what they want him to do. If you think what he has to say will do anything more than rile up the Russians to rally to their dear leader's cause, you are sadly mistaken. I wonder how much that fuck got paid and in what currency to be their tool.

He thought he was still on his book tour. 

[TwiceHorn 31464]

9 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Counter-battery fire is what blows my mind. Radar accurate enough to pick up incoming rounds, calculate a solution, and return accurate fire before the enemy units can move their guns is just crazy. I don't know how true it is, but I've read that you can get off maybe two rounds before US Counter-Battery fire would reduce your artillery units to grease and twisted metal. 

Interesting anecdote.  Clarence Karcher was a petroleum seismologist before WWI, before that was really a thing.  Before the war, seismology relied on refraction:  setting off an explosive at one location and seeing how long it took the concussion waves to get to another location with a seismometer, giving some indication of the rock between the two locations.

Karcher and some associates were hired by the US Army to help locate enemy artillery, which used the same principle, but assumptions about the refractive index of the local rock, derived from all the trenching, to pinpoint German artillery for counter-battery fire.

While working on this, Karcher realized that some of the sound waves were reflected when the density/refractive index of the rock changed, like a thermocline with sonar (discovered later).  That gave much more information about the subterranean formation than purely refraction, which required a lot of guessing about the changes in composition of formations between the explosion and seismometer.

That realization led to modern reflection/refraction seismology and the formation of Geophysical Services, Inc. and Texas Instruments Incorporated.

[Tuco 5076]

Basically, no job is safe on a battlefield.  Others may get attention from the enemy before you do, but they'll get around to you.

My stepdad was drafted for Korea. Had some options and picked artillery, figuring it’d be way back from the front lines. The first day, his commander explained what a forward observer was, and how glad he was there were so many volunteers because they just couldn’t train them fast enough to keep up with how quickly the enemy would pick them off. (My stepdad must be part magic, because he somehow transferred out of there and spent most of his stint in Japan working in a general’s office. Lucky motherfucker, literally.)

[Caponata 151]

14 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Youza.
 

Any sources on this?

[Brisketexan 105134]

Any sources on this?

There’s video.

[Tuco 5076]

Any sources on this?

CNN, FoxNews, Guardian…maybe try Google. Ukrainians claim there may also been a moral victory in that the ship displayed insignia indicating it was part of the original Crimea annexation.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20398]

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20398]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

There’s video.

 

 

[Make em eat Taco Bell 1549]

this will be over in 2-3 months.  

[956 Worldwide 34714]

6 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

What a total trash can of a human.  We should extradite him to Ukraine when this is over. 

[956 Worldwide 34714]

I’ll say this re: Tucker and all our little Kremlobot imitators.  If you regularly find yourself the target of Kremlin propaganda because of the media you consume, you need to rethink your entire damn worldview and not just your preferred medium. This was true for the Commies 35 years ago and it’s true for MAGATs and nationalists today. 

[Caponata 151]

15 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ll say this re: Tucker and all our little Kremlobot imitators.  If you regularly find yourself the target of Kremlin propaganda because of the media you consume, you need to rethink your entire damn worldview and not just your preferred medium. This was true for the Commies 35 years ago and it’s true for MAGATs and nationalists today. 

You're trying to port a domestic, two-party American binary to complicated geopolitics. It's not as easy as Orange Blob dick or whatever supporters vs Democrats. If it was that easy no one in this thread would be supporting the right wing nationalists in Ukraine. 

 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

What is the endgame here?  Why do we need Ukraine integrated into NATO if by our own admission, it is of no strategic value to the United States? 

[956 Worldwide 34714]

24 minutes ago, Caponata said:

You're trying to port a domestic, two-party American binary to complicated geopolitics. It's not as easy as Orange Blob dick or whatever supporters vs Democrats. If it was that easy no one in this thread would be supporting the right wing nationalists in Ukraine. 

 

 

No, you have it backwards.  Tucker Carlson and the Kremlin ported “geopolitics” (Hunter sponsors biolabs) into the U.S. two party system because one significant part of our polity is stupid enough to believe it and ask for more. Hence— the need to adjust worldviews if you are part of the target audience.

 Aside from a few tankies on Twitter, the only significant U.S. apologists and amplifiers of Kremlin disinformation are on the right. They include national level elected officials and the most watched television news host. People with genuine influence and power. That should prompt soul searching within the GOP but it won’t.  They’ll continue to pander and protect.
 

Who is supporting right wing nationalists in Ukraine? Anyone in Ukraine has the right to defend themselves against an invading army.  

[Caponata 151]

53 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

No, you have it backwards.  Tucker Carlson and the Kremlin ported “geopolitics” (Hunter sponsors biolabs) into the U.S. two party system because one significant part of our polity is stupid enough to believe it and ask for more. Hence— the need to adjust worldviews if you are part of the target audience.

 Aside from a few tankies on Twitter, the only significant U.S. apologists and amplifiers of Kremlin disinformation are on the right. They include national level elected officials and the most watched television news host. People with genuine influence and power. That should prompt soul searching within the GOP but it won’t.  They’ll continue to pander and protect.
 

Who is supporting right wing nationalists in Ukraine? Anyone in Ukraine has the right to defend themselves against an invading army.  

Didn't read after Tucker Carlson. 

Who gives a fuck about Tucker Carlson and boomer U.S. cable news shows that get less views than someone unboxing a PS5? This is a small % of the US population and nil for the rest of the world. 

[Thatguy 8699]

On 3/18/2022 at 3:45 PM, Caponata said:

I thought that SuperPAC MeidasTouch said they were going to upload more damning Joe Rogan videos? Surly they can find more stuff in the podcast's decade+ history? Guess their deplatform campaign fizzled out? 

 

On 3/21/2022 at 4:24 AM, Caponata said:

We're currently involved in a genocide in Yemen. Not a fucking peep of mainstream news coverage. 

 

On 3/22/2022 at 5:40 PM, Caponata said:

Yeah let's fuck with the average Russian citizen who is against the war. That'll teach them!! 

 

On 3/23/2022 at 1:17 AM, Caponata said:

Because they're ran by a despot who will punish them for speaking out. You apply this to the U.S. as well, were you protesting all the hundreds of thousands if no millions of innocent people who have been killed by our government? 

 

On 3/23/2022 at 8:25 AM, Caponata said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/american-worker-less-vacation-medieval-peasant-2016-11

 

On 3/23/2022 at 9:34 AM, Caponata said:

Prob not sanction average Russian citizens who are barely making ends meet & advocating for them to feel pain? Americans try to port their domestic political views to geopolitics and it's a total fail. How many ppl with Ukrainian flags on their pfp could find the country on a map?

 

5 hours ago, Caponata said:

Any sources on this?

 

1 hour ago, Caponata said:

You're trying to port a domestic, two-party American binary to complicated geopolitics. It's not as easy as Orange Blob dick or whatever supporters vs Democrats. If it was that easy no one in this thread would be supporting the right wing nationalists in Ukraine. 

 

 

   You are looking very much like a Russian apologist, and we all know what that means. You probably thought you were hiding but this is an educated board, and as such we can see through it.

   As an answer to your post, the entirety of Ukraine is being attacked not just a single political ideology. If the country was in civil war and we were supporting one side then you would be correct.

   Lastly, quit being a Russian apologist. The last 6 years of Trump supporters should show you exactly what is happening in Russia. There were talks of Trump even changing the constitution so he could continue in office. Sound familiar? Trump's kids continuously in the middle of illegal business dealings. Trump supporters don't care. Trump trying to use the DOJ to go after opposition. Don't care. Trying to pull us out of NATO. Don't care. Withholding aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine damns Biden's son. Don't care. Won't open books. Don't care. Openly talks about racehorse theory on national TV. Don't care.

  

   Imagine you are a country that is not even a generation removed. Your people are hard and cold by nature, and seeing this new global world for the first time. All this western ideology is coming in. Parts of society that you despise are getting rights. You feel like the Russia you knew is slipping away. Then here comes this guy talking negatively about all the things you despise and fear, and preaching we are gonna make Russia Great Again. He brings out the flags, making you feel proud. Takes a hard, old school stance on laws, and even tries to reverse some of the ones you hated that got passed a long time ago. He temporarily props up the economy. You think you've found your guy, and ignore every other thing he is doing because he is fighting "for you" and he is "your leader". That's how Putin came to be where he is, but if it sounds familiar its the same playbook Trump ran(and is still calling plays from) here in the US.

  Trump is/was following the Authoritarian playbook to the letter, and much like the population in Russia, Americans were swallowing it better than Bob Stoops can take one down. No matter what alarming shit happened or was said, you couldn't tell(and still can't) a Trump supporter anything. Much like Russia, there are large percentages of the population that think they are losing something. Whether its too many ethnic people, the LGBTQ community being allowed privileges, or any other ridiculous thing they choose to circle the wagons around, they feel as though they are losing the privileges they've been afforded. Trump, having watched Putin over the years, ran the same program here with much success. Make American Great Again is dog whistling, hearkening back to a time in the past when they were the only ones who got those privileges. People here ate it up, and had us heading in the direction of where Russia is now. Lucky for us we have A LOT of checks and balances built into our government.

  The Russian people are to blame because they turned a blind eye to(and continue to) everything Putin has done. Information is coming in via soldiers, internet, loved ones abroad, and they are choosing to ignore it, even calling people traitors for suggesting their man is in the wrong. We can sanction them. We can go to war with them. At the end of the day the only way Russia changes is if the people rise up and make it so. Otherwise it will get leaders like this even after Putin is gone.

[956 Worldwide 34714]

1 hour ago, Caponata said:

Didn't read after Tucker Carlson. 

Who gives a fuck about Tucker Carlson and boomer U.S. cable news shows that get less views than someone unboxing a PS5? This is a small % of the US population and nil for the rest of the world. 

Strong “Russia didn’t spend enough on Facebook to actually influence 2016” vibes. 
 

I think you know better than to claim influence doesn’t extend beyond Nielsen ratings but you’re deliberately ducking the issue. 

[texastough 1129]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

What is the endgame here?  Why do we need Ukraine integrated into NATO if by our own admission, it is of no strategic value to the United States? 

Oh for fucks sake

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What a total trash can of a human.  We should extradite him to Ukraine when this is over. 

Send him to Mariupol right now.

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by WhatTheBuck

[Huckleberry 32859]

2 hours ago, Thatguy said:

You are looking very much like a Russian apologist, and we all know what that means.

No, he seems like a straight up Russian supporter because he is. I don't think even he is stupid enough to think he's fooling anyone, although admittedly I could be wrong about that part. 

1 hour ago, texastough said:

Oh for fucks sake

Again, it should be no surprise that someone who couldn't learn from Charlie Strong's history that he's a bad head coach even as he was ruining USF also can't learn from world history that it might be a bad idea to ignore an authoritarian thug who dreams of expanding his empire when he first invades a neighboring Eastern European country. This is a poster who has proven that he will stake out a provably stupid position and then refuse to change his opinion regardless of how much irrefutable evidence exists. 

[texastough 1129]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Again, it should be no surprise that someone who couldn't learn from Charlie Strong's history that he's a bad head coach even as he was ruining USF also can't learn from world history that it might be a bad idea to ignore an authoritarian thug who dreams of expanding his empire when he first invades a neighboring Eastern European country. This is a poster who has proven that he will stake out a provably stupid position and then refuse to change his opinion regardless of how much irrefutable evidence exists. 

that seemed like a pathetic troll attempt but stupidity could explain it as well 

[F250 28774]

6 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

What is the endgame here?  Why do we need Ukraine integrated into NATO if by our own admission, it is of no strategic value to the United States? 

Currently there is a war between an authoritarian world power and a western liberal democracy in Europe on the border of NATO nations. It feels like there has been a sudden shift towards Neoconservative foreign policy and I am not using that as a pejorative description. Expansion of NATO, unification of western liberal democracies, emphasis on military spending across Europe with the U.S. in the lead of the alliance.

I'm not sure if the current events are enough to cause all of the western countries that have been flirting with Nationalism/Isolationism or not to stop but if there was an opportunity to swing the pendulum it would be now. I imagine that this opportunity is being seized upon.

The United States is also using this opportunity to get the alliance together to beat the shit out of Russia while staring at China.

 

[texastough 1129]

And possibly bring down some GOP shysters at the same time

Edited March 25, 2022 by texastough

[TexasEd 8067]

This is only my second post in this thread and the first one was weeks ago.  I have been keeping up in the DT thread so excuse me if this rant was already discussed but I need the catharsis of posting this.

Some wannabe wolves that are really sheeple have been complaining about how the Biden Admin is handling the Russian invasion and I want to make a compare and contrast of what I think the biggest differences would have been if the orangutan had won.

November - No Russia is not preparing for invasion, they are conducting joint exercises with Belarus.  My BFF, Vlad told me so.  I trust him, I looked into his eyes and saw his respect for me.  Don't listen to the reports from the CIA or military intelligence.  That's an oxymoron, military intelligence.  Ain't that right, secretary of defense Mike Flynn?

December - We are withdrawing from NATO - bye

January - The tanks are rolling into Ukraine is an exercise to stop ANTIFA and the Ukrainian on Russian violence, you know, that has plagued that part of the world for centuries.  No you got it backwards, it's not the Russians who are the aggressors, and Ukraine wanted to install windmills and someone has to stop the windmills and get better flowing toilets.

February - That Russian figure skater was treated so unfairly.  I'm inviting her to the White house for hamburders and we'll discuss how to help the people in Russia suffering from sanctions.  No the Ukrainians are not winning, like my friend Tucker says we're rootin for Putin. I only back winners.

March - We are going to provide intel to Russia to help them find that Zelenksky guy.  He is a terrorist and must be taken out.

Edited March 25, 2022 by TexasEd

[RomaVicta 29907]

5 hours ago, Thatguy said:

Imagine you are a country that is not even a generation removed. Your people are hard and cold by nature, and seeing this new global world for the first time. All this western ideology is coming in. Parts of society that you despise are getting rights. You feel like the Russia you knew is slipping away. Then here comes this guy talking negatively about all the things you despise and fear, and preaching we are gonna make Russia Great Again. He brings out the flags, making you feel proud. Takes a hard, old school stance on laws, and even tries to reverse some of the ones you hated that got passed a long time ago.

Glad to give the rep that made it ten for your excellent post.

Until I hit the word Russia, I thought you were talking about Ronald Reagan. Seriously.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

1. Putin is an autocratic thug who kills dissidents on occasion and runs a kleptocracy. That said, he is at reasonably popular in Russia.

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

3. We have always known Ukraine is a red line for Russia. We have always claimed it is of no strategic value to us. Why then did we promise them NATO membership?

4. He has responded militarily twice before -- in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. This invasion should not have surprised anybody (though it did everybody, including me) because this is what he has said he would do.

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

7. So what, you say. Fuck 'em. Well, here we are. And unless you are prepared to keep escalating this until we reach ww3, this is where we will always be. 

 

There is a solution. A neutral Ukraine. Let Putin keep Crimea and the eastern provinces, but he GTFO out of the rest of the nation and we send in the Blue Helmets. He doesn't get to install a puppet -- the Ukrainians get to choose their leaders. Wealthy nations pour money into the country to rebuild. We strive to make Kyiv an international banking hub. If it's a little shady, we look the other way.

There is a precedent -- albeit an imperfect one -- in the 1839 Treaty of London that assured Belgian neutrality. Belgium can be seen as a sort of western version of the Ukraine in that it lies on a linguistic (and in Belgium's case, also a religious) fault line and at the time was situated between great warring powers. The treaty was honored until 1914, and when the Germans violated it, the consequences were drastic indeed.

This is the only sensible endgame for Ukraine: true neutrality. Otherwise the country will remain a chew toy in a tug of war between east and west forever.

[RomaVicta 29907]

7 hours ago, Caponata said:

If it was that easy no one in this thread would be supporting the right wing nationalists in Ukraine. 

Given an opportunity who are more likely to storm the Ukraine capitol building, Ukrainian Right Wing Nationalists or Russian soldiers? 

How about in America? Right wing nationalists or enemy soldiers?

Sadly for you, it's looking Russian soldiers won't get the opportunity. Your plans to vacation on the coast of Ukraine will have to wait, it seems, fuckwad.

[F250 28774]

4 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

This is only my second post in this thread and the first one was weeks ago.  I have been keeping up in the DT thread so excuse me if this rant was already discussed but I need the catharsis of posting this.

Some wannabe wolves that are really sheeple have been complaining about how the Biden Admin is handling the Russian invasion and I want to make a compare and contrast of what I think the biggest differences would have been if the orangutan had won.

November - No Russia is not preparing for invasion, they are conducting joint exercises with Belarus.  My BFF, Vlad told me so.  I trust him, I looked into his eyes and saw his respect for me.  Don't listen to the reports from the CIA or military intelligence.  That's an oxymoron, military intelligence.  Ain't that right, secretary of defense Mike Flynn?

December - We are withdrawing from NATO - bye

January - The tanks are rolling into Ukraine is an exercise to stop ANTIFA and the Ukrainian on Russian violence, you know, that has plagued that part of the world for centuries.  No you got it backwards, it's not the Russians who are the aggressors, and Ukraine wanted to install windmills and someone has to stop the windmills and get better flowing toilets.

February - That Russian figure skater was treated so unfairly.  I'm inviting her to the White house for hamburders and we'll discuss how to help the people in Russia suffering from sanctions.  No the Ukrainians are not winning, like my friend Tucker says we're rootin for Putin. I only back winners.

March - We are going to provide intel to Russia to help them find that Zelenksky guy.  He is a terrorist and must be taken out.

The criticism of Biden by the GOP is a way of messaging that the GOP is backing Ukraine and dropping any notion of the "America First" policy without directly saying it. Obviously they can't come out and criticize themselves so they are trying to circle back to the old "we are tough and the Democrats are weak" message. This could result in a showmanship thing which will eventually squeeze out the Nationalist element of the GOP. It could also get out of hand and take us down a crazy fucking path. lol Shit doesn't ever just calm down.

 

[jimmyjazz 45936]

26 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. 

I had to stop here, my CEO heard me laughing and wanted to know what was so funny.

[wildcat09 29354]

21 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

Who here is advocating WW3? We've pretty much all been generally on board with Biden's approach. 

Quote

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

C'mon man. You can criticize the wisdom of NATO expansion without buying into this "backing him into a corner" bullshit. Putin has been very clear about what this is about. He wasn't worried that Ukraine or fucking Latvia was going to invade him. He wants to restore Russian domination over its imperial territories.

Quote

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

Maybe you shouldn't speak so certainly about his plans immediately after acknowledging that he surprised you. Maybe his initial plan wasn't to occupy, but maybe that's changed. Maybe his initial plan was to see how the west reacted and if he thought we looked weak, he would've considered invading the Baltic states.  And either way, he doesn't have the fucking right to topple a democratically elected government to feed his imperial ambitions. I think the appearance of strength shit is a stupid and bad way to think about and do policy, but Putin very clearly thinks otherwise (which contributed to the severity of his miscalculation).

Quote

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

Cuba is 100 miles from Florida. We sure as shit didn't want Russian nukes there but we otherwise didn't lose our minds because they were friends with the USSR. 

It's very weird to see leftists suddenly embracing global great power realpolitik shit and talking as if it's actually natural and good for big countries to dominate their neighbors. Your foreign policy views need to be more than "American empire bad." Try "all empire bad" and see how that feels.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Buckle up. 
 

Spoiler

In his nine years selling fertilizer to corn and rice farmers in West Africa, Malick Niang says he has never seen such a severe supply crunch—or such high prices.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, shipping companies have avoided docking at St. Petersburg, Russia, to collect goods, Mr. Niang said. That, together with the impact of the West’s financial sanctions against Moscow, means fertilizer exports from Russia—the world’s largest producer—have fallen sharply. Mr. Niang contacted sellers elsewhere, such as in Senegal and Morocco, but was told their order books are full until the end of the year.

“Maybe we will find one or two options different from Russia, but it’s going to be very expensive,” he said.

Fertilizer prices were already high before the war. They have now reached record levels amid a precipitous drop in Russian supply, according to CRU Group, which analyzes commodity markets. At the same time, more-expensive natural gas, another Russian export and a crucial ingredient in fertilizer-making, has led European fertilizer factories to scale back production.

The result is that fertilizer is about three to four times costlier now than in 2020, with far-reaching consequences for farmer incomes, agricultural yields and food prices.

 

In Indonesia’s East Java province, corn farmer Nurhadi, who goes by one name, has bought half his usual fertilizer stock, relying instead on animal dung, which isn’t as effective and will result, he said, in a substantially reduced yield. In Colombia, which depends on Russia for one-fifth of its fertilizer imports, potato farmer Ana Elvira Sanabria has switched to raising cattle and growing a local fruit called uchuva, which needs less fertilizer.

“Last year at this time, most of us had land ready to plant,” she said. “This year much of it is fallow.”

Farmers’ struggles began before the war. Higher energy costs last year pushed up fertilizer prices, as did new curbs and export-licensing requirements by China, Turkey, Egypt and Russia. Faustin Lohouri Bi Tra, a farmer who grows seeds for other planters in Ivory Coast, said he watched with horror as the price of urea fertilizer quadrupled over the past nine months. “It’s like a scary movie,” he said.

Smaller harvests will hit developing countries the hardest, forcing their cash-strapped governments to import large quantities of staples such as wheat at high prices, agricultural experts say. Global food prices in February touched their highest point since the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization began collecting monthly data three decades ago.

A fertilizer plant in Russia, whose exports of the commodity have tumbled.

PHOTO: ANDREY RUDAKOV/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Food insecurity is likely to worsen. The Global Network Against Food Crises, an alliance of humanitarian and development groups, estimates that by last September, 161 million people across 42 nations in 2021 faced acute malnutrition or were forced to sell assets or take other desperate measures to procure food—up 19% from the start of the year.

“I am deeply concerned that the violent conflict in Ukraine, already a catastrophe for those directly involved, will also be a tragedy for the world’s poorest people living in rural areas who cannot absorb the price hikes of staple foods and farming inputs that will result from disruptions to global trade,” said Gilbert Houngbo, president of the U.N.’s International Fund for Agricultural Development, last week.

 

The disruption in wheat supply from Ukraine could have been a boon for some of the world’s major food exporters, among them Argentina, and farmers such as Gabriel Pellizzon. Instead, Mr. Pellizzon, who grows wheat, corn and soybeans on about 3,700 acres in Argentina’s central Córdoba province, said he is likely to slash production about 30%. Omar Bachetta, a farmer in the country’s Santa Fe province, said he is cutting back on fertilizer. Urea now costs $1,400 a ton, up from $800 last year and $500 the year before, Mr. Bachetta said the farmer.

“The reduction in the sowing of wheat is going to be considerable this year,” he said.

Fertilizer producers are warning of continuing shortages. After Russia’s invasion sent European natural-gas prices to record levels, many companies reduced production of ammonia, which is used to make nitrogen fertilizers. Although prices of European natural-gas futures have fallen since early March, they remain roughly 40% higher than they were before the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Borealis AG, a large European fertilizer maker, said this month it is running its ammonia plants at reduced capacity. Nitrogénművek Zrt., a Hungarian producer, said it is temporarily halting ammonia production. Norway-based Yara International, one of the world’s largest fertilizer producers, said in early March that it would limit production at plants in France and Italy, bringing down its European ammonia and urea production to around 45% of capacity.

“Our concern over the coming season is that nations already in a vulnerable position will face deteriorating conditions, in particular if dependent on net imports of both food and fertilizers,” said Yara spokeswoman

Even if natural gas were to become less costly, rebooting ammonia plants is expensive, said Tony Will, chief executive and president of CF Industries Holdings Inc., a nitrogen-fertilizer manufacturer based in Deerfield, Ill. The company has kept one of its U.K. plants shut since September.

“We need to have a window that looks like we can operate it for at least three to six months profitably. Otherwise, it’s really hard to begin the startup process,” Mr. Will said. “We don’t see the window as a likelihood at the moment.”

 

[956 Worldwide 34714]

32 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

1. Putin is an autocratic thug who kills dissidents on occasion and runs a kleptocracy. That said, he is at reasonably popular in Russia.

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

3. We have always known Ukraine is a red line for Russia. We have always claimed it is of no strategic value to us. Why then did we promise them NATO membership?

4. He has responded militarily twice before -- in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. This invasion should not have surprised anybody (though it did everybody, including me) because this is what he has said he would do.

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

7. So what, you say. Fuck 'em. Well, here we are. And unless you are prepared to keep escalating this until we reach ww3, this is where we will always be. 

 

There is a solution. A neutral Ukraine. Let Putin keep Crimea and the eastern provinces, but he GTFO out of the rest of the nation and we send in the Blue Helmets. He doesn't get to install a puppet -- the Ukrainians get to choose their leaders. Wealthy nations pour money into the country to rebuild. We strive to make Kyiv an international banking hub. If it's a little shady, we look the other way.

There is a precedent -- albeit an imperfect one -- in the 1839 Treaty of London that assured Belgian neutrality. Belgium can be seen as a sort of western version of the Ukraine in that it lies on a linguistic (and in Belgium's case, also a religious) fault line and at the time was situated between great warring powers. The treaty was honored until 1914, and when the Germans violated it, the consequences were drastic indeed.

This is the only sensible endgame for Ukraine: true neutrality. Otherwise the country will remain a chew toy in a tug of war between east and west forever.

This entire post is a cope cage.

First principle— Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was not motivated by Ukraine possibly joining NATO one day. 
 

Until you can accept that simple truth, it’s pointless to pontificate on how to end or what should have been done. Step one is not to believe the things Russia says in diplomatic statements but look at what they do. 

[F250 28774]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

but we otherwise didn't lose our minds because they were friends with the USSR. 

[Huckleberry 32859]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Your foreign policy views need to be more than "American empire bad." Try "all empire bad" and see how that feels.

This is a really great close, sir. Needed to be recognized. 

[Sbbruin 21853]

43 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

1. Putin is an autocratic thug who kills dissidents on occasion and runs a kleptocracy. That said, he is at reasonably popular in Russia.

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

3. We have always known Ukraine is a red line for Russia. We have always claimed it is of no strategic value to us. Why then did we promise them NATO membership?

4. He has responded militarily twice before -- in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. This invasion should not have surprised anybody (though it did everybody, including me) because this is what he has said he would do.

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

7. So what, you say. Fuck 'em. Well, here we are. And unless you are prepared to keep escalating this until we reach ww3, this is where we will always be. 

 

There is a solution. A neutral Ukraine. Let Putin keep Crimea and the eastern provinces, but he GTFO out of the rest of the nation and we send in the Blue Helmets. He doesn't get to install a puppet -- the Ukrainians get to choose their leaders. Wealthy nations pour money into the country to rebuild. We strive to make Kyiv an international banking hub. If it's a little shady, we look the other way.

There is a precedent -- albeit an imperfect one -- in the 1839 Treaty of London that assured Belgian neutrality. Belgium can be seen as a sort of western version of the Ukraine in that it lies on a linguistic (and in Belgium's case, also a religious) fault line and at the time was situated between great warring powers. The treaty was honored until 1914, and when the Germans violated it, the consequences were drastic indeed.

This is the only sensible endgame for Ukraine: true neutrality. Otherwise the country will remain a chew toy in a tug of war between east and west forever.

How to you propose Ukraine defend itself from this happening again, this time with Russia learning from its mistakes from this campaign?  True neutrality as you describe it sets them up to be steamrolled again unless they are in a position to defend themselves against a vastly larger, more aggressive neighbor,

[Bama Chick 28596]

The American republican propaganda to Russian propaganda feedback loop is something else, man.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

1. Putin is an autocratic thug who kills dissidents on occasion and runs a kleptocracy. That said, he is at reasonably popular in Russia.

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

3. We have always known Ukraine is a red line for Russia. We have always claimed it is of no strategic value to us. Why then did we promise them NATO membership?

4. He has responded militarily twice before -- in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. This invasion should not have surprised anybody (though it did everybody, including me) because this is what he has said he would do.

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

7. So what, you say. Fuck 'em. Well, here we are. And unless you are prepared to keep escalating this until we reach ww3, this is where we will always be. 

 

There is a solution. A neutral Ukraine. Let Putin keep Crimea and the eastern provinces, but he GTFO out of the rest of the nation and we send in the Blue Helmets. He doesn't get to install a puppet -- the Ukrainians get to choose their leaders. Wealthy nations pour money into the country to rebuild. We strive to make Kyiv an international banking hub. If it's a little shady, we look the other way.

There is a precedent -- albeit an imperfect one -- in the 1839 Treaty of London that assured Belgian neutrality. Belgium can be seen as a sort of western version of the Ukraine in that it lies on a linguistic (and in Belgium's case, also a religious) fault line and at the time was situated between great warring powers. The treaty was honored until 1914, and when the Germans violated it, the consequences were drastic indeed.

This is the only sensible endgame for Ukraine: true neutrality. Otherwise the country will remain a chew toy in a tug of war between east and west forever.

A lot of your points seem to be informed by John Mearsheimer. His talk from 2015 or so was pretty compelling and convincing. Political science professor from U of Chicago, and as far as I could tell not a Russian asset or Putin apologist. I won’t link here because even the title will ruffle feathers to the extreme. 

[Thatguy 8699]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Being among the last Strong loyalists is no more foolish than believing our CIA-led foreign policy has been right about anything, ever, and here it looks to me like we've goaded Ukraine into picking a fight they can't win. We will defend their country to the last Ukrainian.

Or maybe not. The other option is WW3. Some of y'all seem think it will be a breeze but I am not so sure. Russia sucks on the road but is salty at home. 

1. Putin is an autocratic thug who kills dissidents on occasion and runs a kleptocracy. That said, he is at reasonably popular in Russia.

2. Over the last 23 years, we (US-led NATO) have been backing him into a corner with two rounds of NATO expansion and worse, the promise of a third for Georgia and Ukraine. 

3. We have always known Ukraine is a red line for Russia. We have always claimed it is of no strategic value to us. Why then did we promise them NATO membership?

4. He has responded militarily twice before -- in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. This invasion should not have surprised anybody (though it did everybody, including me) because this is what he has said he would do.

5. His plans go no further than breaking Ukraine. He does not plan to occupy it, much less go blazing off into NATO-land. Maybe he would like to but he just can't, and more, doesn't have even the potential to do so.

6. To understand global strategy you must have empathy. Not sympathy, but the ability to see things from the other perspective. You continually write off any argument along these lines as Whataboutism, but, fuck it -- well, what about if Mexico suddenly aligned with Russia and wanted to put a joint base in the port of Veracruz? Or had tank muzzles casting shadows in the Rio Grande? Or if Canada and China got cozy and the Chinese fleet steamed into their new base in Vancouver? This is what Ukraine in NATO looks like to Russia.

7. So what, you say. Fuck 'em. Well, here we are. And unless you are prepared to keep escalating this until we reach ww3, this is where we will always be. 

 

There is a solution. A neutral Ukraine. Let Putin keep Crimea and the eastern provinces, but he GTFO out of the rest of the nation and we send in the Blue Helmets. He doesn't get to install a puppet -- the Ukrainians get to choose their leaders. Wealthy nations pour money into the country to rebuild. We strive to make Kyiv an international banking hub. If it's a little shady, we look the other way.

There is a precedent -- albeit an imperfect one -- in the 1839 Treaty of London that assured Belgian neutrality. Belgium can be seen as a sort of western version of the Ukraine in that it lies on a linguistic (and in Belgium's case, also a religious) fault line and at the time was situated between great warring powers. The treaty was honored until 1914, and when the Germans violated it, the consequences were drastic indeed.

This is the only sensible endgame for Ukraine: true neutrality. Otherwise the country will remain a chew toy in a tug of war between east and west forever.

 

 1939. Nazi Germany accused the Poles of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also claimed that the Poles, UK, and France were trying to "box them in" so to speak. Those were the justifications for steamrolling the Poles. Its almost word for word the same thing Putin's Russia is saying about Ethnic Russians in Ukraine and NATO, right? Like you, a lot of the world just stood by and made the excuses you just made about Putin, why he is doing this, and suggesting what his end game is. However, that was all just a facade for a Dictator who wanted to see Nazi Germany rule the world.

  So you grow up and they teach you about WW2. You go to college and dig a little deeper on the details. Yet you still aren't seeing the parallels? History has taught us that leaving a maniac dictator unchecked simply leads to more deaths and bloodshed. We sat on our hands a the start of WW2 and it ended up costing the world 80 million lives, but more importantly a few hundred thousand American lives.

 

  In closing, a country has a right to choose who or what it wants to align itself with. Russia is an abusive ex boyfriend that thinks all his ex girlfriends need to live on his street. However, all those ex girlfriends, being abused and all, want nothing to do with him. Plus its their human right to feel that way. He cannot understand that and refuses to acknowledge it. So his solution is to beat the ex girlfriends some more, or until moral improves.

 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

as I could tell not a Russian asset or Putin apologist

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

51 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

How to you propose Ukraine defend itself from this happening again, this time with Russia learning from its mistakes from this campaign?  True neutrality as you describe it sets them up to be steamrolled again unless they are in a position to defend themselves against a vastly larger, more aggressive neighbor,

The UN. Force Russia to attack United Nations troops. If they think world opinion is against them now, see what happens then.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Cuba is 100 miles from Florida. We sure as shit didn't want Russian nukes there but we otherwise didn't lose our minds because they were friends with the USSR. 

What? They are still under embargo to this day. If that's not insane I don't know what is.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Why is a UN-mandated neutral Ukraine a bad idea?

[Huckleberry 32859]

"I hate countries messing with other countries. Also, Ukraine should have their foreign policy dictated by all the other countries."

[wildcat09 29354]

While we're talking about things that are impossible, why don't we just get the Avengers to guarantee Ukraine's security?