Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Thatguy 8,761]

3 hours ago, TexasEd said:

When the conflict ends and they are in the rebuilding phase I could see part of my retirement or a sabbatical being 6 months in Ukraine teaching English and making tacos.  I know the standard of living would be low but the quality of life high.

 

[SL Xpress 7,517]

11 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Its a brutal reality when the best course forward is simply the least shitty of several really shitty options. And listening to people in the US bitch about gas prices for the next 6 months as a  result is probably gonna make me wanna rip some heads off. 

You got that right. But I live in Houston. I rip people’s heads off for complaining about gas prices as a matter of course. “We ALL work in the oil industry!”

[Macanudo 12,999]

10 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Firebird Unchained.

 

 

 

Top that.

[DDD Dad 14,346]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

 

I'm well aware of this, like you I've read a lot about Russian military doctrine tactics especially over the past month, so unless this is your field of study and or profession, step down off that high horse as you are just as much an expert on this topic as I am

[DigglerontheHoof 21,207]

4 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I don’t agree. I hope we don’t find out, just like I hope China doesn’t test us militarily in the Indo-China Sea.

The thing with NATO countries, specifically the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania, is the US has troops there. 

Have you noticed a huge sticking point for Putin is no more NATO expansion? If Putin had no concerns about the West’s resolve to trigger Article 5, why not just let Ukraine join NATO after all? Why make a big deal about the Baltic States or former Iron Curtain countries becoming signatories? The truth is it does concern him. He’s not willing to pressure NATO countries militarily the way he is non-NATO countries. 

There’s also this sense that Putin’s going to do whatever he wants now because the West is just standing by doing nothing. That’s not true. Putin is not doing well primarily because of Ukrainian resolve and skill combined with their own incompetence. But Western support for the last 8 years and ongoing has played a major factor as well. Putin will never be able to do whatever he wants ever again. 

I don’t think some of you realize how much of a watershed moment this is for Putin’s Russia, and it’s not a good one. Yes, things will never be the same for the West, but I’m looking at a future that suddenly looks much brighter. I’ve never seen the NATO alliance look so united.

For Putin he’s going to be facing a cratered economy, a brain drain, a disgruntled wealthy class, a starving lower class, a shattered infrastructure suffering from severed links with western supply chains, and the weakest amount of pull on the international stage since he took office. By the time Russia manages to shift course - whenever that may be - so much havoc will have been wreaked it’s going to take a couple of decades to recover. At least. And as soon as the internet is opened to their populace again - which it will have to be unless they want to look to North Korea’s economy as their ideal - a whole new generation of younger people with the needed skills and curiosity will find out what Putin did in their country’s name, and their trust in their government’s propaganda will be greatly diminished. 

Honestly just need to guy to keel over for any reason whatsoever and we could still get something that faintly resembles a happy ending. No, not that kind of happy ending…well, maybe. I guess that kind, too. 

You’re much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am so that makes sense.

My main point was that being painted into a corner is getting painted into a corner, NATO country or not.

The West seems convinced Putin has a low threshold for using nukes.  IMO that gives him a very strong position to maneuver from.

Bit, again, I’m relatively ignorant of Russia and their military doctrine.

[MillerEP 30,492]

[Parliament 14,272]

21 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Honda My Own Prison, woop!

Edited March 9, 2022 by Parliament

[Brisketexan 105,178]

20 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Yugo Making Love Out of Nothing at All.

Fuck you, Air Supply is a rock band to me!

 

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Yeah, I also doubt how sacrosanct NATO is.   If he attacks the US, France, or the UK?  Then of course shit’s on at that point because the country he attacks will have the ability to escalate themselves.

But if he tests the Baltics?  Maybe even Poland?  I think a lot of the same sentiment would emerge that we’re seeing now.  “Who cares about NATO? Do you want to risk killing all life on the planet for Estonia?”

Putin is going to keep testing the limits until he can’t anymore.  He wants to fracture NATO, and having NATO hang one of its members out to dry is the way to do that.  He just has to be convinced he can get away with it.  So, hopefully we make the Ukraine foray so costly and difficult that he feels he can’t be belligerent anywhere else for a while.  And then maybe he dies in the meantime before he feels his oats enough for the next attempt.  

To the bolded: 1) And NATO knows that.  2) NATO is more cohesive than it's been in decades.  That's exactly why NATO WOULD respond to an attack on the Baltics (and note, NATO isn't just the US -- it's Poland, for example.  If Putin attacks Latvia, you damned well bet Poland would respond.  And if Poland is in, the other Baltics are in.  And probably the Czechs and Slovaks.  See where this is going?

If Putin had STARTED with a foray into Latvia, the scenario you're worrying about might have happened.  NATO was at risk.  Today?  Nope.  Putin had built all kinds of weaknesses into NATO over decades, and he squandered them all literally overnight when he invaded Ukraine.

[BachelorTrek 3,054]

24 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Mustang Shoot To Thrill

Lulz.

[Macanudo 12,999]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yugo Making Love Out of Nothing at All.

Fuck you, Air Supply is a rock band to me!

 

Talk about small dick energy.

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

59 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Farmers will beat the swords into plowshares. 

 

[Brisketexan 105,178]

5 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Talk about small dick energy.

Oh yeah?  Does THIS look like small dick energy?

 

Yeah, I didn't think so.  I expect your apology to be forthcoming.

[Bevo 13,590]

35 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Cherokee and for the sake of this exercise Train in Vain so Cherokee Train

[Macanudo 12,999]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Cherokee Train

Straight or Gay Pornstar?

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

1 minute ago, Macanudo said:

Straight or Gay Pornstar?

Depends. What’s the pay?

[gmr548 16,590]

 

Unless European means British or Polish, I think you have to defer to US Intel given how the lead up to the conflict went.

[utee94 15,835]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To the bolded: 1) And NATO knows that.  2) NATO is more cohesive than it's been in decades.  That's exactly why NATO WOULD respond to an attack on the Baltics (and note, NATO isn't just the US -- it's Poland, for example.  If Putin attacks Latvia, you damned well bet Poland would respond.  And if Poland is in, the other Baltics are in.  And probably the Czechs and Slovaks.  See where this is going?

 

Beyond that, the idea of Putin attacking a second country, while he's getting his ass handed to him in the first, is laughable.  He can't even manage a war on one front against a vastly outmatched opponent.  Attempting to open a second front against a country with full NATO backing, would put a very quick end to all of his attempts at warmongering.

 

[CHIEF 5,094]

44 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Bronco Comfortably Numb (wish I liked Thunderstruck more).

CHIEF

[ABSR 5,319]

3 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Depends. What’s the pay?

As they say, 2,725 Rubles is 2,725 Rubles.

[Brisketexan 105,178]

Just now, utee94 said:

Beyond that, the idea of Putin attacking a second country, while he's getting his ass handed to him in the first, is laughable.  He can't even manage a war on one front against a vastly outmatched opponent.  Attempting to open a second front against a country with full NATO backing, would put a very quick end to all of his attempts at warmongering.

 

Correct.  That was absolutely a fear of mine as this war kicked off.  But the ferocity of the Ukrainian response put that fear to bed real quickly.  Putin simply couldn't pull  it off now if he tried.  Any incursion would be smoked before the third tank crossed the border of Latvia.

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

2 hours ago, Smax said:

I just dont buy that he would launch nukes, sorry I just dont. Yes he's an narcissistic lunatic but he's also been through kgb training and knows what launching would entail and while hes proven not to give 2 fucks I don't think he wants to go down as the man who ended the world.

I entered the military just after the Soviet Union broke up, and we were still training as if we might fight the Russians and a part of that training was dealing with NBC warfare (nuclear, biological, chemical).  It was well understood that the Russians saw nukes as a "tactical" weapon to use if things weren't going their way, and there's nothing to indicate that has changed - they still have a massive nuclear arsenal for a reason.

And the fact that their military is apparently shit/gutted by oligarchs/deficient in many areas (maintenance, etc.) means they would find their backs to the wall even quicker than in the 1980s or even early 1990s.

We abandoned the idea of tactical nukes for the most part, for a lot of reasons, including that we'd be using them on friendly territory, while the Russians saw them as both defensive and offensive weapons should they feel the need to crash through the Fulda Gap.  We also hit a point in the 1980s and 1990s where our precision guided weapons could do what some past planners would have used nukes for, while it's clear the Russians aren't nearly at the same level we are in terms of precision.  Cheaper/easier to consider a nuke for them.

But to put it into perspective, Russia has around 2,000 "tactical" (low-yield/non-strategic) nukes that could easily be used in Ukraine, while we have 200 that fall into that category, because it's a part of their doctrine and has been for probably 50 years or more.

We run the risk that because Russia has so many tactical/non-strategic nukes ready to be used within a theater of war while we have so few, that they will feel like we can't really do tit-for-tat at that level, and that we will refuse to escalate to the strategic/city-killing level.

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

@Smax read this - Putin was a major part of their "escalate to deescalate strategy", and the Russian military trains with the notion of tactical nukes coming into play.

https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/why-russia-calls-a-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation/

Quote

The Russian response, begun even before the conflict over Kosovo had ended, was to develop a new military doctrine. This effort was supervised by Vladimir Putin, then-secretary of Russia’s Security Council, a body similar to the National Security Council in the United States. By the time the doctrine was adopted in the spring of 2000, it was Putin who signed it in his new capacity as president.

Quote

The doctrine introduced the notion of de-escalation—a strategy envisioning the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would force an opponent to accept a return to the status quo ante. Such a threat is envisioned as deterring the United States and its allies from involvement in conflicts in which Russia has an important stake, and in this sense is essentially defensive. Yet, to be effective, such a threat also must be credible. To that end, all large-scale military exercises that Russia conducted beginning in 2000 featured simulations of limited nuclear strikes.

Quote

De-escalation rests on a revised notion of the scale of nuclear use. During the Cold War, deterrence involved the threat of inflicting unacceptable damage on an enemy. Russia’s de-escalation strategy provides instead for infliction of “tailored damage,” defined as “damage [that is] subjectively unacceptable to the opponent [and] exceeds the benefits the aggressor expects to gain as a result of the use of military force.” The efficacy of threatening tailored damage assumes an asymmetry in a conflict’s stakes. Moscow reasoned when it adopted the policy that, for the United States, intervening on behalf of Chechen rebels (for example) might seem a desirable course of action for a variety of reasons. But it would not be worth the risk of a nuclear exchange. Russia, however, would perceive the stakes as much higher and would find the risk of a nuclear exchange more acceptable. Indeed, in the early 2000s, Russian military experts wrote that US interference in the war in Chechnya could have resulted in a threat to use nuclear weapons.

 

[Deej 76,858]

50 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Tell me your first car model and your favorite rock song. 

That's your porn name! Lol

Century Kashmir

[cmontexas 3,272]

Silverado Stinkfist

[CHIEF 5,094]

1 hour ago, ABSR said:

Almost more than KIA is what are the number of injured?  Is it 3X, 5X, 10X the KIA's?   

If we say 6K KIA and conservatively 3X injured, that is 24K of the 200K force that is OOO.   I think it is likely that the KIA numbers and thee injured factors are higher.

I've been thinking about this. Pretty much any Russian in a tank, APC, or fuel truck taking an RPG or Javelin is KIA. In an aircraft, getting hit by a Stinger, KIA. There has been very little infantry, which would tend to be wounded. The Russians don't really have the logistics to remove their dead, or injured. So the injured my end up KIA sitting right where they were WIA, and bled out. The number might only be 1.5x, or 2x, possibly.

CHIEF

[clapclapclap 9,000]

Meanwhile, on the propaganda fronts:

 

 

[TXSG8R 3,362]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

Poland 🇵🇱 has bigger balls than we do! 

All this coverage is ignoring the elephant in the room. Ramstein AFB is in Germany. The planes would have to traverse German air space. I’m pretty sure Germany had a large part in knocking this down. If Poland had big balls they would have made the transfer to Ukraine directly and not tried to involve someone else’s airspace. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by TXSG8R

[gmr548 16,590]

To the bolded: 1) And NATO knows that.  2) NATO is more cohesive than it's been in decades.  That's exactly why NATO WOULD respond to an attack on the Baltics (and note, NATO isn't just the US -- it's Poland, for example.  If Putin attacks Latvia, you damned well bet Poland would respond.  And if Poland is in, the other Baltics are in.  And probably the Czechs and Slovaks.  See where this is going?
If Putin had STARTED with a foray into Latvia, the scenario you're worrying about might have happened.  NATO was at risk.  Today?  Nope.  Putin had built all kinds of weaknesses into NATO over decades, and he squandered them all literally overnight when he invaded Ukraine.

This. Decades of erosion of the transatlantic security partnership has essentially been repaired in a month. There’s not a chance NATO would shrug at a Russian incursion at this point. I think even the American public, as war weary as it’s been since Vietnam, would support that.

I think NATO would be smart enough to not try to attempt a ground invasion of Russia, but I think we’ve seen enough to be confident in the ability to repel their ground attacks, with the follow up being the surgical dismantling of military and strategic targets within Russia, particularly close to NATO borders with air power, drones, and cruise missiles. Effectively neuter their ability to project power and let them know it stops the second they come to the table. Always have an off ramp.

Also, it’s worth noting that this is completely hypothetical because Russia does not have the capacity to mount a threatening conventional assault on any NATO country while it’s bogged down in Ukraine like this. The US and UK would be lighting them up in the Baltics or in Poland within hours. Even if he’s really surrounded by yes men, Putin has to know this.

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

The only way the Ukraine is lost is if the Ukrainian people lose the will to fight.  I see no evidence of this whatsoever.  There aren't degrees of winning for Russia, only degrees of losing here.  The Afghani's fought for 10 years against them using will to fight, and eventually western assistance and won.  The Ukrainians didn't have to wait for western assistance.  Big difference.  

I am trying to find the interview again, but saw one this week with a former CIA guy involved with Afghanistan in the 1980s, and they were never able to get the mass of anti-tank and anti-air into Afghanistan that is flowing into Ukraine on a near daily basis, along with getting people trained to the levels the Afghans were.  Plus, putting aside the sheer numbers of anti-tank/anti-vehicle weapons, what they had was not nearly as effective as what there is now.

And he really felt that the Ukrainian defenses could take Russian helicopters out of the equation, which puts the ground forces at a huge disadvantage.  He mentioned that everybody keeps talking about tanks and trucks, but he felt that Russia's helicopter problem would be just as big or even bigger factor going forward, because it puts the Russians on almost the same footing as the Ukrainians. 

And looking at the confirmed stats - the Ukrainians have taken out more Russian helicopters in two weeks than were typically lost in a year in Afghanistan.

[CHIEF 5,094]

1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

I don’t agree. I hope we don’t find out, just like I hope China doesn’t test us militarily in the Indo-China Sea.

The thing with NATO countries, specifically the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania, is the US has troops there. 

Have you noticed a huge sticking point for Putin is no more NATO expansion? If Putin had no concerns about the West’s resolve to trigger Article 5, why not just let Ukraine join NATO after all? Why make a big deal about the Baltic States or former Iron Curtain countries becoming signatories? The truth is it does concern him. He’s not willing to pressure NATO countries militarily the way he is non-NATO countries. 

There’s also this sense that Putin’s going to do whatever he wants now because the West is just standing by doing nothing. That’s not true. Putin is not doing well primarily because of Ukrainian resolve and skill combined with their own incompetence. But Western support for the last 8 years and ongoing has played a major factor as well. Putin will never be able to do whatever he wants ever again. 

I don’t think some of you realize how much of a watershed moment this is for Putin’s Russia, and it’s not a good one. Yes, things will never be the same for the West, but I’m looking at a future that suddenly looks much brighter. I’ve never seen the NATO alliance look so united.

For Putin he’s going to be facing a cratered economy, a brain drain, a disgruntled wealthy class, a starving lower class, a shattered infrastructure suffering from severed links with western supply chains, and the weakest amount of pull on the international stage since he took office. By the time Russia manages to shift course - whenever that may be - so much havoc will have been wreaked it’s going to take a couple of decades to recover. At least. And as soon as the internet is opened to their populace again - which it will have to be unless they want to look to North Korea’s economy as their ideal - a whole new generation of younger people with the needed skills and curiosity will find out what Putin did in their country’s name, and their trust in their government’s propaganda will be greatly diminished. 

Honestly just need to guy to keel over for any reason whatsoever and we could still get something that faintly resembles a happy ending. No, not that kind of happy ending…well, maybe. I guess that kind, too. 

That's what I'm thinking as well. If Ukraine wins this, or eventually causes the Russians to abandon the campaign and go home. Putin will be neutered for the rest of his life. He will never live long enough to see war production ramped up enough to try this bullshit again. Russia will never again have international supply lines that will send military components. Their ability to wage conventional warfare will go the way of the dinosaur. He will be in power, but this will be the end of the saber rattling.

CHIEF

[Sawbonz 27,580]

10 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

This. Decades of erosion of the transatlantic security partnership has essentially been repaired in a month. There’s not a chance NATO would shrug at a Russian incursion at this point. I think even the American public, as war weary as it’s been since Vietnam, would support that.

I think NATO would be smart enough to not try to attempt a ground invasion of Russia, but I think we’ve seen enough to be confident in the ability to repel their ground attacks, with the follow up being the surgical dismantling of military and strategic targets within Russia, particularly close to NATO borders with air power, drones, and cruise missiles. Effectively neuter their ability to project power and let them know it stops the second they come to the table. Always have an off ramp.

Also, it’s worth noting that this is completely hypothetical because Russia does not have the capacity to mount a threatening conventional assault on any NATO country while it’s bogged down in Ukraine like this. The US and UK would be lighting them up in the Baltics or in Poland within hours. Even if he’s really surrounded by yes men, Putin has to know this.

Anybody think Russia is going to have any assets left to invade a NATO country after another couple of weeks of this?

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

It makes me curious as to why the US numbers are so drastically low compared to European intel. Is it because they only want to go off of what they can confirm, or it is that we don't have nearly the assets in place like the European agencies do? 

Feeding RU false info so they keep sending troops into a meat grinder?

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

6 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

My concern is that those holding estimates are based on occupying functional, largely intact cities. It’s a lot easier to hold cities reduced to rubble with a population entirely dependent on the occupying force for basic needs. If they cut Kiev entirely away from external support those millions of people get a lot more pliable. It’s hard to fight when you don’t have food or water. 

If the Russians are able to encircle Kyiv completely, that means a shitload of Ukrainians will be fighting them from both inside Kyiv, and from outside the encirclement.

But Russia does not have the troops to encircle and occupy Kyiv, and you are talking about a situation where Russian troops would be exposed on multiple sides.  And the Russians on the western side of Kyiv are going to be getting pounded by Ukrainians being fed an almost unlimited supply of missiles, rifles, etc.

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

And this invasion and the indiscriminate killing of civilians, including women and children, will never be forgotten. I doubt Ukraine has ever been this united in its history. 

Putin kept talking about how Ukraine wasn't really a country, and yet he's done the one thing most guaranteed to unify them and make them feel like a united country. Genius.

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

That national identity was effective in the defense of their land, but as today and other recent offensive campaigns have shown us, they are not good at mounting and supporting these conflicts.  Their morale and logistics issues from Afghanistan and showing again in spades.  

I need to start bookmarking this stuff, but an author who has written quite a bit about European conflicts was mentioning on twitter that Russians can fight balls-to-the-wall if the Motherland is invaded, as we saw in WWII, but since the fall of then Soviet Union and the Cold War, because of low-pay, shit training, and the culture that permeates the Russian military, particularly the army where there is a lot of hate between the lower ranks and their NCOS/officers, it's hard to get them enthusiastic about fighting elsewhere.  He mentioned there's basically a window where they maybe convinced they are doing something to protect the Rodina or whatever, but that window shrinks quickly the more they engage with the enemy, and the more they realize that what they were told wasn't the reality.  

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

4 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

So when Zelensky makes repeated calls for a no fly zone by appealing to Western guilt for not doing enough to help the Ukrainian people, is he doing it because he thinks there’s a legitimate chance Western powers are going to start shooting down Russian fighters and bombers, and taking out S400 emplacements in Belarus and Russia? Or is this a strategy to keep applying immense political pressure for them to do more?

Because it sure sounds sincere. I guess he’s an actor, but I don’t know. He sounds pissed, betrayed, and embittered it’s not happening. Also desperate, but that part I get.

You are trying to sell something.  You want/need $80 million, but you know the other side is going to automatically make a lower offer.  So you start at $150 million, and eventually negotiate down to $100 or $90 million.  They think they got a good deal, and you get what you want, and maybe more.

He knows NATO won't mix it up with Russia right now, so he most likely wants a lot better air defenses (or replacements for what he's using up).  He doesn't need a NFZ if he can get the right anti-aircraft systems. 

The Stingers will take care of helicopters and low-flying airplanes forced to use dumb bombs.  He's probably looking for something to replace his S-300s when they start running out.

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

3 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Putin has been dying to get us involved directly since day 1.  Of course they would engage us.  Then we'd wipe the floor with them, then he'd nuke something.

He's fucking scared of being in a room with flight attendants, so he does green-screen fakery.

He's fucking scared of being near his own civilian and military subordinates, so he has them sit  at the end of a long table, or in some ridiculous room, both situations having lots of physical distance between him and those he's talking to.

He's hanging out in fucking mountain bunkers.

Whether it's a fear of assassination or COVID because he has some disease and the meds are fucking with his immune system, this is a man who is fucking scare of stuff.  He's not going to run the risk of starting a war that could see him targeted by American/British/French/etc. weapons.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

39 minutes ago, cmontexas said:

Silverado Stinkfist

Chevette Takin care of business.  

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

3 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Makes me wonder:

1.  Was this really a blunder on the part of the military leadership (to send conscripts)? 

2.  An excuse for why the Russian invasion is going so poorly.

3.  A different excuse for Putin to send in "regular" Russian Army troops who may or may not do better in combat.  

The problem with #3 is that all of the fuckups leading up until now have put the Russian Army into a bind in terms of moving any troops into Ukraine.  Lots of extremely valuable and probably irreplaceable (thanks to sanctions) tanks and other armored vehicles (command/control, air defense, etc.) have been knocked out.  People can talk about everything he has left in his quiver of ground forces, but how much of it works, how much of it will have the same maintenance problems (rust, tire rot, etc.) that we've already seen, and how does he get it that last 90-120km into Ukraine?

Oh, and these last two weeks have produced a shitload of now extremely-experienced Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, two weeks of Ukraine setting up defenses and ambush and chokepoints, and a massive influx of all kinds of weapons, missiles, etc. so Russian infantry coming in will face a much tougher fight.  

[BamaATL 16,593]

3 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Chevette Takin care of business.  

Ram Godzilla

[choripan 790]

Escort Babe I'm Gonna Leave You

[Scary Stranger 1,715]

Ford I Have a Huge Penis

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

What are the Russian KIA figures now two weeks into the fight?  6K?  9K?  Somewhere in between?  This, plus the massive material losses have only one outcome.  By summer these numbers could be over 100K easily.  Those are WWI-esq levels of slaughter

Russia officially said 498 on March 2nd, with just over 3 times that amount wounded, and we know the Russians A) Deliberately downplay casualty numbers and B) Probably don't have a grasp if they are just leaving bodies all over the place, and vehicles are getting ambushed in 1s and 2s and 3s by themselves.

I really think it's no less than 4,000 KIA by March 9, and like that would be the absolute minimum, which should mean they are pushing close to 10,000 wounded.  POWs, can't get a good read on that.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I've seen it said again and again (on this board and most other mainstream outlets) that the line in the sand is if Putin attacks a NATO country. 

I don't think that's the case.  I believe if he does attack a NATO country, you'd see much of the same from the West.  Harsher sanctions, much brow furrowing and little else.  That's because we KNOW we'd fuck the Russians up in ANY conventional encounter.  However, Putin still has nukes and still has the West convinced he'll use them.

So, he invades a NATO country, NATO unleashes hell and pushes in their stool, Putin is backed into a corner.  Nuke Party.

The gig is the same whether or not it's a NATO country. 

The West is petrified of Putin's unrestrained power and Putin knows it.

Disagree completely.  NATO has shocked the hell out of everybody and is doing everything they can to make sure that Putin loses, which means Putin gets backed into a corner. And NATO (or its member states depending on your view) has been working to help Ukraine get ready for this since 2014.

And NATO has deployed their 40,000 strong Response Force to forward positions in Romania, etc., a force they've never actually deployed before, and that is composed of some of the most highly-trained/experienced and best-equipped units, and the US and others are positioning soldiers/tanks/etc. into the Baltics, Poland, etc., and NATO is making sure everybody knows that they have aerial patrols running 24/7 along the borders.

Not only has NATO done everything they can short of putting soldiers in Ukraine to ensure Putin's defeat, but they are more unified than ever, and they now have a kind of cooperation deal going on with Sweden and Finland, something that has surprised many, and pissed off the Russians to no end.  Both Sweden and Finland, as well as NATO, have made it clear that Sweden and/or Finland need only pick up the bat phone and they are in.

If NATO were doing what you think they are doing, they shy away from open talk and cooperating with Finland/Sweden, they don't stage the NATO Response Force forward as  a tripwire/response, and they don't push troops into the Baltics, Poland, etc.

NATO escalated the fuck out of this to a degree they have never done before.

[South Austin 52,523]

Rabbit Never Gonna Give You Up

[DigglerontheHoof 21,207]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Disagree completely.  NATO has shocked the hell out of everybody and is doing everything they can to make sure that Putin loses, which means Putin gets backed into a corner. And NATO (or its member states depending on your view) has been working to help Ukraine get ready for this since 2014.

And NATO has deployed their 40,000 strong Response Force to forward positions in Romania, etc., a force they've never actually deployed before, and that is composed of some of the most highly-trained/experienced and best-equipped units, and the US and others are positioning soldiers/tanks/etc. into the Baltics, Poland, etc., and NATO is making sure everybody knows that they have aerial patrols running 24/7 along the borders.

Not only has NATO done everything they can short of putting soldiers in Ukraine to ensure Putin's defeat, but they are more unified than ever, and they now have a kind of cooperation deal going on with Sweden and Finland, something that has surprised many, and pissed off the Russians to no end.  Both Sweden and Finland, as well as NATO, have made it clear that Sweden and/or Finland need only pick up the bat phone and they are in.

If NATO were doing what you think they are doing, they shy away from open talk and cooperating with Finland/Sweden, they don't stage the NATO Response Force forward as  a tripwire/response, and they don't push troops into the Baltics, Poland, etc.

NATO escalated the fuck out of this to a degree they have never done before.

You and a couple others convinced me I'm mistaken...and gladly so. 

[atomheartbevo 89,757]

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

We are very much in a helpless situation here and we are all angry.  We are watching evil play out and its a helpless feeling. 

Someday we will need a (non-CR) post-game thread for this war, and talk about how it's changed NATO, created the potential for other similar alliances in other parts of the world, look at how it's reshaping world powers (Russia being the most sanctioned country ahead of North Korea is hilarious), and how it's shifting geopolitical strategies both in Europe and here in the US, not to mention a lot of overhauling of various nation's militaries (I'd imagine that many are reconsidering tanks going forward).

[Duke Silver 191]

Probe Whole Lotta Love

[Parliament 14,272]

Guys no more pron names.  This is the [serious] thread.

[Sbbruin 21,865]

3 hours ago, phdhorn said:

 

However, if things go worse for Russia and Putin sees no other resort, he'll use nukes - it's hard coded into their strategy. And yes, I think their nukes are formidable. Because the generals and knowledge people I've read think they are. That with nukes, there's not a lot of room for ineptitude like the conventional war so far.

 

OK, then play that out a little further.  They use nukes.  Tactical nukes so as not to trigger full scale mutually assured annihilation.  How, then, does Russia EVER reintegrate into the multinational stage?  They become untouchable even for the dregs of the international community.  Complete and utter collapse of not only the Russian economy, but the entire society.  They are cut off from absolutely everything.  All markets.  All trade.  Everything.  If he's too stupid to play that forward, well, there's no hope for them.

I don't agree that nukes are embedded in the playbook.  He'll rattle his sabres that they are.  But that would be a genie he would never get back in the bottle.