Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[BabaYaga 15,298]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The Russians are kaiju?

Not quite....

[atomheartbevo 89,668]

Russian Recon company commander killed. 
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1514175092674203648

Russian battalion commander (but only a major so probably a replacement for a dead Lt. Col.)

And another battalion commander dead

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1514169873810833408

 

[BabaYaga 15,298]

12 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

Nobody needs to turn Moscow into glass, at least not yet. I would start with something more tactical, like a couple of squadrons of A-10's, with support coverage, that should be able to effectively take care of armored columns that would no longer exist.

Though the big risk is Putin retaliates with tactical nukes.

Avatar checks out

[Etexhorn13 3,051]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Here’s a perfectly insane interview with one of the top advisors and propagandists for the regime in Moscow. As is usual with these things, I don’t recommend taking any of the justifications at face value. I do recommend reading between the lines to see what is planned for Ukraine.

https://www.corriere.it/economia/aziende/22_aprile_08/we-are-at-war-with-the-west-the-european-security-order-is-illegitimate-c6b9fa5a-b6b7-11ec-b39d-8a197cc9b19a.shtml?fbclid=IwAR38ho0yANY1XSgV_Q3NB3O9ewp2JLc6RtypivmtGaRvNfrpkM2Hh9mCwQw
 

 

Really, what a bizarre interview. Obviously all bullshit, but I love how the interviewer calls him out on his answers to certain questions, as if the rest of the world can’t clearly see through it because we’re getting a fuller picture of what’s going on. 

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Here’s a perfectly insane interview with one of the top advisors and propagandists for the regime in Moscow. As is usual with these things, I don’t recommend taking any of the justifications at face value. I do recommend reading between the lines to see what is planned for Ukraine.

https://www.corriere.it/economia/aziende/22_aprile_08/we-are-at-war-with-the-west-the-european-security-order-is-illegitimate-c6b9fa5a-b6b7-11ec-b39d-8a197cc9b19a.shtml?fbclid=IwAR38ho0yANY1XSgV_Q3NB3O9ewp2JLc6RtypivmtGaRvNfrpkM2Hh9mCwQw
 

 

They mental pretzeling in this interview is amazing.  Everyone should read it.  

[atomheartbevo 89,668]

From CNN

Quote

A Ukrainian presidential adviser said that after a "risky maneuver" the last remaining defenders of the besieged port city of Mariupol have been able to join forces. Oleksiy Arestovych said the "units of the 36th Independent Marine Brigade broke through to [join] the Azov regiment," consolidating Ukraine's position against the Russian offensive.

 

[elfenix 34,240]

48 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Where did we get old Mi-17's?  They are ancient.  Think Huey's from Vietnam.  And a Soviet design

first flight in 1975, so not quite that old. still being made, we were buying them from russia to give to afghans. 

[atomheartbevo 89,668]

Okay sounds like they have truly decided.  

 

[atomheartbevo 89,668]

 

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Okay sounds like they have truly decided.  

 

Can someone clue me in on why Finland first?  Is it so they're a physical barrier should Russia try something so outrageous as to try and cross Finland to get to Sweden?  

Also, this is how shit gets out of control:

Quote

Russia considers US and NATO vehicles transporting weapons in Ukraine as legitimate military targets, - Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov threatens

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/13-april-russia-considers-us-and-nato-vehicles-transporting

 

[InkaUtexas 25,940]

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Can someone clue me in on why Finland first?  Is it so they're a physical barrier should Russia try something so outrageous as to try and cross Finland to get to Sweden?  

Also, this is how shit gets out of control:

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/13-april-russia-considers-us-and-nato-vehicles-transporting

 

Concerning NATO/US Vehicles, we are not crossing into the Ukraine from what I have seen, but taking the equipment close to the border. So to attack would be an attack on a NATO nation. Anyone else see anything different? 

[utee94 15,823]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Concerning NATO/US Vehicles, we are not crossing into the Ukraine from what I have seen, but taking the equipment close to the border. So to attack would be an attack on a NATO nation. Anyone else see anything different? 

No that's what I've been seeing as well.  

And honestly, vehicles and caravans with weapons for Ukrainian troops, ARE legitimate military targets.  Not that Russia cares about such distinctions.

 

 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,817]

Dumb question, I hope I don’t offend @Born to Run too badly with this stupidity….


Why weren’t Finland and Sweden in nato?

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Concerning NATO/US Vehicles, we are not crossing into the Ukraine from what I have seen, but taking the equipment close to the border. So to attack would be an attack on a NATO nation. Anyone else see anything different? 

Yeah, I'm sure that's what we're doing. 

But the Russians have a penchant for lying about shit.  Still, I don't think they've gone Crazy Ivan enough to attach a train yard in a NATO country.

[InkaUtexas 25,940]

Just now, utee94 said:

No that's what I've been seeing as well.  

And honestly, vehicles and caravans with weapons for Ukrainian troops, ARE legitimate military targets.  Not that Russia cares about such distinctions.

 

 

Agree that they are. But I don't see Putin hitting the airbase in Poland over this. I think this statement is to show strenght while knowing there is not much they can do. 

[The Dog 44,051]

9 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Can someone clue me in on why Finland first?  Is it so they're a physical barrier should Russia try something so outrageous as to try and cross Finland to get to Sweden?  

 

Pretty much:

https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-nato-wins-lottery-finland-membership-russia-ukraine/

Quote

Indeed, Sweden’s long-governing Social Democrats have historically used Finland as a convenient shield on NATO matters. They could pledge that if Finland decided to join the alliance, Sweden would, of course, give the matter the utmost consideration, safe in knowing that such a change across the border was unlikely to take place. By referring to the Finns, they could avoid an issue that would cause internal division in the party and aggravate Russia.  

Finland’s reversal on NATO membership is nothing short of extraordinary. So extraordinary, in fact, that Sweden’s government is struggling to comprehend it. But it has also presented Sweden with the most incredible opportunity in terms of its potential accession to NATO. 

Taking the lead on the matter, Finland is now energetically stepping forward, sparing Sweden the trouble of having to break the ice on NATO matters. It’s even absorbing the much-feared Russian blow that has so far included not just threats but cyberattacks against its foreign and defense ministries. Russia is, of course, doing its part by demonstrating to all and sundry that it’s not a country with which one can expect good-faith relations. As Marin observed this month, Russia is not the neighbor “we thought it was.” 

 

[The Dog 44,051]

5 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Concerning NATO/US Vehicles, we are not crossing into the Ukraine from what I have seen, but taking the equipment close to the border. So to attack would be an attack on a NATO nation. Anyone else see anything different? 

Even if NATO vehicles are crossing into Ukraine they can be targeted without trigging Article 5 as they are in Ukraine.

If they blow them up in Poland or a member state then it will. 

[utee94 15,823]

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

Agree that they are. But I don't see Putin hitting the airbase in Poland over this. I think this statement is to show strenght while knowing there is not much they can do. 

Yeah I didn't really read that as anything new.  We're not  (officially) driving US or NATO vehicles into Ukraine to deliver arms.  So if they really want to hit NATO vehicles, they're going to have to attack them inside NATO countries.  And that would be the end of putin and his war.

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

Just now, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Dumb question, I hope I don’t offend @Born to Run too badly with this stupidity….


Why weren’t Finland and Sweden in nato?

I'm sure there are others who can speak more to it.  But Finland because of their unique proximity to the Soviet Union/Russia.  There's a lot of trade there.  They want to lean West, but there's certain realities on the ground they haven't been able to avoid since they had to capitulate in the Winter War, and then switch sides during the Continuation War.  Looks like that's coming to an end.

Sweden has always tried to be neutral.  They have had the physical barriers to do that in the past.  

I'm sure Russia is going to be happy having to pass a NATO naval gauntlet to get out of Leningrad/St. Petersburg.

[The Dog 44,051]

The Finnish border is only about 100 miles from St Petersburg. 

Finland joining NATO is a diplomatic and strategic nightmare for Russia. 

Great job there Vald.

[SydneyCarton 48,106]

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I'm sure there are others who can speak more to it.  But Finland because of their unique proximity to the Soviet Union/Russia.  There's a lot of trade there.  They want to lean West, but there's certain realities on the ground they haven't been able to avoid since they had to capitulate in the Winter War, and then switch sides during the Continuation War.  Looks like that's coming to an end.

Sweden has always tried to be neutral.  They have had the physical barriers to do that in the past.  

I'm sure Russia is going to be happy having to pass a NATO naval gauntlet to get out of Leningrad/St. Petersburg.

It also is a good time for them to join, outside of the obvious, because you have to assume the amount of trade they even want to do with Russia is likely to by stymied in one form or another when sanctions in Russia really start having noticeable effects. 

[686 3,449]

Finnish PM is giving me this vibe:

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

It also is a good time for them to join, outside of the obvious, because you have to assume the amount of trade they even want to do with Russia is likely to by stymied in one form or another when sanctions in Russia really start having noticeable effects. 

This is a great point. Aside from aggression, Russia doesn’t appear to have much to offer to Finland - or anyone for that matter - right now.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

This is a great point. Aside from aggression, Russia doesn’t appear to have much to offer to Finland - or anyone for that matter - right now.

This.  Russia has gone all in on being "all stick, no carrot."  When all you have to offer is threats and aggression, then that's how you'll be dealt with.

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

A big part of Finland has to be they they remember in the Winter War when the West was morally supportive but only sparingly sent obsolete equipment and a few volunteer troops.

It was a true David and Goliath tale where Stalin’s claim was that Finland was going to attack Leningrad and they needed to push the border back. And really, the Finns were just an errant Russian province having only gained independence during 1917 when the Russians were distracted by liberating the country from the Czar. So really Russia was doing the Finns a favor.

Sound familiar?

The Finns want NATO committed to showing up with the best equipment and troops should that happen again. Which, contrary to all sanity and reason, appears to be a real possibility.

[Chad Fuck 17,681]

I mean the Finns sided with the Nazi's in WWII in large part to have another crack at the Russians.  There's no love lost there.

 

[elfenix 34,240]

  

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I mean the Finns sided with the Nazi's in WWII in large part to have another crack at the Russians.  There's no love lost there.

 

they already had swastikas on their planes so it was the easy choice

Edited April 13, 2022 by elfenix

[The Dog 44,051]

So we should all understand how big of a deterrent Finland joining NATO is to Russia. Like I pointed out above, they are only 100 miles from St Petersburg.

This isn't just about protecting Finland - it also is a massive deterrent to Russia even CONTEMPLATING an attack on the Baltics or Poland. Because if Russia were to do that then St Petersburg would be sacked by NATO within a day. 

This is Russia's worst nightmare from a strategic perspective. They absolutely have to place defenses along that border and drop any illusions of taking any additional territory (assuming they actually end up with anything additional after they are done getting their asses beat in Ukraine.)

In the immediate future we're worried about what Russia might do, but is there any way Putin survives this now? He's literally put Russia in the most vulnerable position possible. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

So we should all understand how big of a deterrent Finland joining NATO is to Russia. Like I pointed out above, they are only 100 miles from St Petersburg.

This isn't just about protecting Finland - it also is a massive deterrent to Russia even CONTEMPLATING an attack on the Baltics or Poland. Because if Russia were to do that then St Petersburg would be sacked by NATO within a day. 

This is Russia's worst nightmare from a strategic perspective. They absolutely have to place defenses along that border and drop any illusions of taking any additional territory (assuming they actually end up with anything additional after they are done getting their asses beat in Ukraine.)

In the immediate future we're worried about what Russia might do, but is there any way Putin survives this now? He's literally put Russia in the most vulnerable position possible. 

Which is why Putin's chess game seems pretty shitty to me.

He played a masterful first 2/3 of the match, what with destabilizing the West, creating internal dissent, splitting apart the EU with Brexit, amping up political divisiveness in the US, etc.  He had his opposition in a less-than-ideal posture.

But then he blew most of that with an incredibly arrogant and ill-planned/prepared invasion of a real sovereign state in Europe.  With respect to Russia, most of the advantages he had cultivated went "poof," functionally overnight (e.g., the UK is working pretty much in lockstep with the EU on this one).

Then, if his REAL goal was "stable borders with no nearby NATO threat," he just put on a display that demonstrated in concrete and bloody terms that any western nation within reach of Russia would be a damned fool to NOT be a member of NATO if it had the option.  So, here come Sweden and Finland, giving Russia an ADDITIONAL border with a NATO nation.

The first 2/3 of the match were played masterfully.  And then Putin felt like he had the match in the bag, so he started playing like a drunken moron.  And the problem is, you only score the match at the end -- nobody cares how many pieces you took down, or how much you dominated most of the game.  The only question is who ends up in checkmate.  Putin has put himself and Russia in a place where it's very hard to see how they will come out ahead of even where they were before they started this mess, much less coming out even or ahead of where they wanted to end up.

[BabaYaga 15,298]

1 minute ago, The Dog said:

So we should all understand how big of a deterrent Finland joining NATO is to Russia. Like I pointed out above, they are only 100 miles from St Petersburg.

This isn't just about protecting Finland - it also is a massive deterrent to Russia even CONTEMPLATING an attack on the Baltics or Poland. Because if Russia were to do that then St Petersburg would be sacked by NATO within a day. 

This is Russia's worst nightmare from a strategic perspective. They absolutely have to place defenses along that border and drop any illusions of taking any additional territory (assuming they actually end up with anything additional after they are done getting their asses beat in Ukraine.)

In the immediate future we're worried about what Russia might do, but is there any way Putin survives this now? He's literally put Russia in the most vulnerable position possible. 

This is also why we need to make sure this is a good call.  The invasion was obviously not justified, but it was easily predicted by many who stated Russia will see talks of Ukraine joining NATO or being aligned with the West an act of aggression that would precipitate a reaction.  

Not saying the move is a bad one, but it is such a major move that needs to be analyzed from every possible angle.  It creates a massive border of 1,600+ miles with Russia & NATO countries.  The significant northern flank as many have stated.  There is risk here.  Russia is stating publicly that this expansion is "untenable" for them.  What does that mean?  You have Russia saying the "peace" was always about mutual deterrence with the West, and when "one side" gains the upper hand, and nukes are on the table (and they are), that the threat to the entire architecture is in play and desperate measures WILL be taken.  This is an obvious escalation move.  Is it the right one?

[27-25 2,047]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is why Putin's chess game seems pretty shitty to me.

He played a masterful first 2/3 of the match, what with destabilizing the West, creating internal dissent, splitting apart the EU with Brexit, amping up political divisiveness in the US, etc.  He had his opposition in a less-than-ideal posture.

But then he blew most of that with an incredibly arrogant and ill-planned/prepared invasion of a real sovereign state in Europe.  With respect to Russia, most of the advantages he had cultivated went "poof," functionally overnight (e.g., the UK is working pretty much in lockstep with the EU on this one).

Then, if his REAL goal was "stable borders with no nearby NATO threat," he just put on a display that demonstrated in concrete and bloody terms that any western nation within reach of Russia would be a damned fool to NOT be a member of NATO if it had the option.  So, here come Sweden and Finland, giving Russia an ADDITIONAL border with a NATO nation.

The first 2/3 of the match were played masterfully.  And then Putin felt like he had the match in the bag, so he started playing like a drunken moron.  And the problem is, you only score the match at the end -- nobody cares how many pieces you took down, or how much you dominated most of the game.  The only question is who ends up in checkmate.  Putin has put himself and Russia in a place where it's very hard to see how they will come out ahead of even where they were before they started this mess, much less coming out even or ahead of where they wanted to end up.

Sounds like Putin took some bad advice after holding a winning hand.  At least Stan the Caddy didn't get shipped off to Siberia, or worse.

 

[TexPx 2,323]

I mean the Finns sided with the Nazi's in WWII in large part to have another crack at the Russians.  There's no love lost there.
 

Sweden had Nazi sympathizers too.
National League of Sweden
New Swedish Movement
Svensk Socialistisk Samling. IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad caught shit when it was revealed he was a member during WWII.

[BabaYaga 15,298]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is why Putin's chess game seems pretty shitty to me.

He played a masterful first 2/3 of the match, what with destabilizing the West, creating internal dissent, splitting apart the EU with Brexit, amping up political divisiveness in the US, etc.  He had his opposition in a less-than-ideal posture.

But then he blew most of that with an incredibly arrogant and ill-planned/prepared invasion of a real sovereign state in Europe.  With respect to Russia, most of the advantages he had cultivated went "poof," functionally overnight (e.g., the UK is working pretty much in lockstep with the EU on this one).

Then, if his REAL goal was "stable borders with no nearby NATO threat," he just put on a display that demonstrated in concrete and bloody terms that any western nation within reach of Russia would be a damned fool to NOT be a member of NATO if it had the option.  So, here come Sweden and Finland, giving Russia an ADDITIONAL border with a NATO nation.

The first 2/3 of the match were played masterfully.  And then Putin felt like he had the match in the bag, so he started playing like a drunken moron.  And the problem is, you only score the match at the end -- nobody cares how many pieces you took down, or how much you dominated most of the game.  The only question is who ends up in checkmate.  Putin has put himself and Russia in a place where it's very hard to see how they will come out ahead of even where they were before they started this mess, much less coming out even or ahead of where they wanted to end up.

Chess is also a game where you have to understand the opponent you are matched up with.  If you are playing against a paranoid person, playing to that paranoia has to be a part of your calculus.  Remember Fiona Hill and many in the IC back in 2008 telling Bush that any overt talks on Ukraine and NATO WILL be seen as an act of aggression by Putin.  She was laughed out of the room.  This was why so many of the other NATO countries opposed their admission (among a number of other factors as well).  

[Nivek 16,930]

In terms of why we shut down the aircraft transfer before
[/url]  

That was fairly obvious.

[ABSR 5,312]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is why Putin's chess game seems pretty shitty to me.

He played a masterful first 2/3 of the match, what with destabilizing the West, creating internal dissent, splitting apart the EU with Brexit, amping up political divisiveness in the US, etc.  He had his opposition in a less-than-ideal posture.

But then he blew most of that with an incredibly arrogant and ill-planned/prepared invasion of a real sovereign state in Europe.  With respect to Russia, most of the advantages he had cultivated went "poof," functionally overnight (e.g., the UK is working pretty much in lockstep with the EU on this one).

Then, if his REAL goal was "stable borders with no nearby NATO threat," he just put on a display that demonstrated in concrete and bloody terms that any western nation within reach of Russia would be a damned fool to NOT be a member of NATO if it had the option.  So, here come Sweden and Finland, giving Russia an ADDITIONAL border with a NATO nation.

The first 2/3 of the match were played masterfully.  And then Putin felt like he had the match in the bag, so he started playing like a drunken moron.  And the problem is, you only score the match at the end -- nobody cares how many pieces you took down, or how much you dominated most of the game.  The only question is who ends up in checkmate.  Putin has put himself and Russia in a place where it's very hard to see how they will come out ahead of even where they were before they started this mess, much less coming out even or ahead of where they wanted to end up.

I would say he played a great 1/3 of the match.  Once he invaded Ukraine proper with a full on assault he misplayed by not continuing his slow game.   I think him being 70, having possible health issues, and getting older played into him over reaching as he may have been wanting to get his great Russia/USSR reclamation done prior to aging out and not getting credit and to revel in his success.

If he had kept at his prior game of incremental growth and in his latest step had just declared the contested  Donbas/Luhansk areas as being independent (and later annexed them), but not invaded for the entire region, then likely he would have had success and the world would have reacted similarly to when they took Crimea.  That was my concern when this started is that if he did the small step like in the past that the world would do more limited sanctions and then ignore it as a local issue.

He overplayed his hand with a full on country invasion of conquest and then had the unfortunate need for a real army with real leadership instead of a an army trained to be overpowering thugs and bullies.

[The Dog 44,051]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is also why we need to make sure this is a good call.  The invasion was obviously not justified, but it was easily predicted by many who stated Russia will see talks of Ukraine joining NATO or being aligned with the West an act of aggression that would precipitate a reaction.  

Not saying the move is a bad one, but it is such a major move that needs to be analyzed from every possible angle.  It creates a massive border of 1,600+ miles with Russia & NATO countries.  The significant northern flank as many have stated.  There is risk here.  Russia is stating publicly that this expansion is "untenable" for them.  What does that mean?  You have Russia saying the "peace" was always about mutual deterrence with the West, and when "one side" gains the upper hand, and nukes are on the table (and they are), that the threat to the entire architecture is in play and desperate measures WILL be taken.  This is an obvious escalation move.  Is it the right one?

Russia made the decision for Finland/NATO with the invasion of Ukraine IMHO. They lied their asses off on their real intentions and invaded anyway. They proved that they cannot be trusted and are forcing everyone's hand. 

We are WELL PAST the point of asking "what will Russia do?" because they have shown that they will be aggressors no matter what. 

That's what Finland now believes so they are buddying up with the biggest bully on the block.

[atomheartbevo 89,668]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

The invasion was obviously not justified, but it was easily predicted by many who stated Russia will see talks of Ukraine joining NATO or being aligned with the West an act of aggression that would precipitate a reaction.  

Nobody was going to attack Russia with its 6,500 nukes and this had nothing to do with NATO expansion. Ukraine was also never going to be allowed to join as long as there were Russian troops on its territory.  

Putin has bitched for decades about the breakup of the USSR and that Ukraine is not a real nation and is a part of Russia.  Last summer he even publicly put out a bit of a manifesto about how Ukraine is really a part of Russia. 

Russia has reached a point demographics-wise where its military is in trouble going forward.  They didn’t have enough children in the 90s and it’s crippling them going forward. If they didn’t invade now, they sure as hell could not have invaded in 5-10 years.  Ukraine would have continued building its military while Russian manpower continued to decline.   

[MillerEP 30,455]

Here's a good and short video explaining the Finland/Sweden backstory as it relates to the USSR and NATO:

 

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[Armybrat 40,845]

11 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

This was at a rally in D.C., and yeah, I'm an asshole for laughing

 

Geeze... he even has to look up to Kyler.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

1 hour ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Dumb question, I hope I don’t offend @Born to Run too badly with this stupidity….


Why weren’t Finland and Sweden in nato?

Sweden's neutrality goes back to the mid-19th Century when Prussia started to expand.  Sweden stayed out of both World Wars, and it has just always been understood that it would be neutral along with Switzerland.

Finland's neutrality comes from a 1948 treaty with the Soviet Union.  The Soviets recognized after the Winter War that conquering Finland would be very difficult in the early part of the Cold War.  But, at the same time, Finland wasn't big enough to completely resist Soviet influence on its foreign policy.  So its neutrality was kind of the uncomfortable compromise.

[MillerEP 30,455]

^Quite the welcome, seems like she has some supporters.

 

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[MillerEP 30,455]

^Must feel support slipping, so now he has to stage another 1999 Apartment bombing?

Edited April 13, 2022 by MillerEP

[BabaYaga 15,298]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Nobody was going to attack Russia with its 6,500 nukes and this had nothing to do with NATO expansion. Ukraine was also never going to be allowed to join as long as there were Russian troops on its territory.  

Putin has bitched for decades about the breakup of the USSR and that Ukraine is not a real nation and is a part of Russia.  Last summer he even publicly put out a bit of a manifesto about how Ukraine is really a part of Russia. 

Russia has reached a point demographics-wise where its military is in trouble going forward.  They didn’t have enough children in the 90s and it’s crippling them going forward. If they didn’t invade now, they sure as hell could not have invaded in 5-10 years.  Ukraine would have continued building its military while Russian manpower continued to decline.   

I hope you are right.  I do.  This just seems rife with the potential to escalate beyond an ability to contain it.  

[MillerEP 30,455]

^Lol "Short term contracts available" 

Umm..How "short Vlad? Short because they'll be killed within the first week, or short because you mistakenly believe this will be over in a few weeks?

^Yikes. Sounds like a lot of single men put their names in, to receive single women, instead of families?

[AUS-97HORN 11,762]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I hope you are right.  I do.  This just seems rife with the potential to escalate beyond an ability to contain it.  

yeah, apart from the 200-300 million people killed in a nuke war, what would really hack most of us off is that the last 13 years of college football ended with them winning 6 fucking titles.

[MillerEP 30,455]

^Good, the Swiss are still helping.

[BabaYaga 15,298]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Russia has reached a point demographics-wise where its military is in trouble going forward.  They didn’t have enough children in the 90s and it’s crippling them going forward. If they didn’t invade now, they sure as hell could not have invaded in 5-10 years.  Ukraine would have continued building its military while Russian manpower continued to decline.   

That's a part of the long-term study and debate we are going to see many papers written about.  The timing?  What precipitated the act.  As we saw with the crash in 2007, what events led up to the fateful day it all came to a boil.  Why now?  Why not last year?  Or next?  

In the end, I think much lays at the feet of shitty intel about the lack of pushback the army was going to face.  If you genuinely believe it was to be a 72+ campaign, why not invade?  So what happened to the breakdown of intel that led to the decision?  Such a blunder of epic proportions.  

[MillerEP 30,455]