Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

Just now, Hefeweizen said:

What the fuck?  The last dip shits who did this were ISIS.  

Fify

[Scheiss Meister 8,407]

9 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Just likethe Taliban destroying the Buddha statues.  Ignorant savages.

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

26 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Can you imagine being a Ukrainian soldier, being trained on the soviet tech they have, and then this American shit comes in with trainers telling you the capabilities?  And they’re all “here you go, happy hunting!”

It's like being a soldier or Marine and somebody tells you that Ann Margaret is coming.

[686 3,449]

Can you imagine being a Ukrainian soldier, being trained on the soviet tech they have, and then this American shit comes in with trainers telling you the capabilities?  And they’re all “here you go, happy hunting!”

Pretty big advantage to know your opponents weapon systems inside and out and then bring in newer tech to exploit the weak spots. I believe the phrase “borderline erotic” would be in order.

[956 Worldwide 34,710]

14 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

there's been a lot of talk about the past mistakes of allowing Putin to cross red lines without being punished and how that appeasement has led us to this point.

one thing worth noting is every nutjob with nukes is watching right now. if putin is able to demolish an entire country and, regardless of the outcome of the war, is allowed to continue ruling his country, notes will be taken.

he's gotta die a very ignominous death. 

For me the most frustrating thing is our combined failure to equip the Ukrainians with this type of equipment, at the very least letting them buy what they needed like other countries, BEFORE this war.  Imagine if we had.  The game we played about offensive vs. defensive weapons was always for us and not Putin. 

[Pato del Muerto 52,494]

3 minutes ago, 686 said:

Pretty big advantage to know your opponents weapon systems inside and out and then bring in newer tech to exploit the weak spots. I believe the phrase “borderline erotic” would be in order.

It’s analogous to that SNL skit of Michael Jordan as the first black basketball player. 
minus the eroticism, maybe. 

[BabaYaga 15,295]

40 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Can you imagine being a Ukrainian soldier, being trained on the soviet tech they have, and then this American shit comes in with trainers telling you the capabilities?  And they’re all “here you go, happy hunting!”

Proxy wars are the best wars.  

[686 3,449]

I wonder if any of these fires/explosions are from Stuxnet-type efforts? 

No, IMO. We didn’t control when Stuxnet implemented itself into the VFD’s on the centrifuges; it took the right person picking up the right “gimmie” thumb drive, and putting it into the right computer. Took a long time to all happen. This stuff we’re seeing currently is internal de facto protests IMHO. ~If I can’t stand in the square and hold a poster, I’ll burn the damn factory down.

[Scheiss Meister 8,407]

3 minutes ago, 686 said:

No, IMO. We didn’t control when Stuxnet implemented itself into the VFD’s on the centrifuges; it took the right person picking up the right “gimmie” thumb drive, and putting it into the right computer. Took a long time to all happen. This stuff we’re seeing currently is internal de facto protests IMHO. ~If I can’t stand in the square and hold a poster, I’ll burn the damn factory down.

So Russia is full of Miltons sick of their red Swinglines being taken away and being moved to the basement.  Next they'll find strychnine in the borscht.

[Da Fino 2,781]

15 minutes ago, 686 said:

No, IMO. We didn’t control when Stuxnet implemented itself into the VFD’s on the centrifuges; it took the right person picking up the right “gimmie” thumb drive, and putting it into the right computer. Took a long time to all happen. This stuff we’re seeing currently is internal de facto protests IMHO. ~If I can’t stand in the square and hold a poster, I’ll burn the damn factory down.

Thanks. That makes more sense. 

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

Moldova was probably saber rattling/Russia trying to get Ukrainian troops diverted.

 

[MillerEP 30,455]

https://torcheepee.com/3939-2/

RUSSIANS ARE A PROBLEM
May 1, 2022 | A comment
Visitors have accessed this post 939 times.

War in Ukraine...

I too believed that the problem was not the Russians, but Putin. I, too, believed that the poor Russians were forced into this war they did not want.

The truth is that the problem is with the Russian people and not only with Putin. It is ordinary Russians who are committing war crimes and massacres in Ukraine. They are the ones who laugh when they see a destroyed Ukrainian village. They are ordinary Russians who target buildings full of civilians. They are the ones who have been spitting their hatred on Ukrainians for years.

Ukrainians often understand and speak Russian. They showed me what is said on social media or simply in exchanges between former "friends" (now enemies) Russians and Ukrainians. Russians have a sick hatred of Ukrainians. The only reason many Russians don't want this war anymore is because Russian blood is flowing in Ukraine. Without this pain, without these deaths, the Russians would be even more arrogant and violent than they are now. Only violence, suffering and death can pull the Russians out of their madness.

Just as the Germans were a dangerous and indoctrinated people under Hitler's rule, today's Russians are largely accomplices and executors of Russia's crimes. Not all Russians, but a large number of them.

Hitler did not kill tens of millions of people. Hitler never fired a single bullet in the entire war, except when it came time to kill himself. Putin did not kill a single person with his hands during this war. This should make us think.

I too was a friend of the Russians. I'm not anymore.

*my latest sniper book, my projects: www.livreswali.com / www.walisbooks.com

Faith and Fight
W

 

^The Canadian Sniper Wali's blog post from yesterday

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

7 hours ago, Goredho said:

Yeah, you are correct at the geopolitical level.  I just mean on a personal level, early on we all at least considered the possibility of WW3 and nuclear annihilation, but I have never felt any tension in this, and have been very supportive of putting the screws to Putin.  I just wonder if my thinking would be different if we hadn’t spent the last few years worried about a different “existential threat.”

I probably felt more tension watching 13 days about the Cuban middle crisis than I have felt living through this period of wanton Russian aggression and their talk of their nuclear options.  Not a news flash, but this has exposed not just Russia’s military weakness, but Putin’s image as a dangerous and cunning foe to be largely illusory.  Now if he talks about nukes, the world be like...

I agree about the tension - the only tension is that which Putin created, and it doesn't affect us directly.  NATO and Ukraine were not existential threats to Putin/Russia - in fact, NATO never invaded a Warsaw Pact country, but you know who did invade  Warsaw Pact countries?  The Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries.  

A big part of the problem with Putin is that he came of age in a job that was committed to paranoia and secrecy, and because the KGB and later FSB were fixated on shit they wanted to do to other countries, they naturally assumed that other countries wanted to do it to them.

It never really occurred to them that the West didn't want to to invade Russia for its resources, at least not militarily.  It was far cheaper and more efficient for Western companies to go in to resource-heavy areas, hire the locals, create the infrastructure, pay off the government officials, etc., and extract those resources, sell them to other countries/companies, wash, rinse, repeat.  The West didn't want to bomb or conquer Russia militarily, they wanted

The problem is that Putin's propaganda overwhelmed all other media within Russia, to the point where he tells everybody that Ukraine/NATO is an existential threat and then he can't backtrack from that - he has to take and keep some territory.

 

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

One other thing that ties into that @Goredho - Peter Zeihan's stuff ties into a lot of the above, and I like a lot of Peter Zeihan's stuff - he can clearly articulate various ideas, play out end games, etc.

But it seems like in most of his videos these days, at some point he fixates on the notion that Russia absolutely positively has to conquer not only Ukraine but like 7 or 8 other countries (including several NATO countries), in order to get Russia A) Another 100 million people, and B) A bunch of geographically defensible areas (mountain ranges, valleys, etc.), and that it's Putin's ultimate goal and legacy.  He seems to really believe that Putin will win in Ukraine and then invade Poland and the Baltic states, and maybe even Finland.

We've seen Putin make moves that were not focused on either population or natural defenses, but instead focused on making himself and the other oligarchs a bunch of money.

We've also seen him do things really half-assed (Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014) when he had the forces to completely finish the job, without the threat of intervention from the West.  If what Zeihan keeps saying is true, and that Putin/Russia are 100% scared of being invaded by NATO, they should have finished the job in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and moved on from there, instead of just leaving troops there.

And prior to 2008, they should have acted against countries joining NATO  - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all joined in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020.  And he definitely should have moved against Moldova well before now.

I do somewhat buy into the move against Ukraine being driven partly by Russia continuing to decline in demographics (Russia is on the back-side of their demographics implosion in the 1990s), but it was an intersection between a decline in Russian manpower and a realization that Ukraine was only going to continue to gain strength economically and militarily.

And I really wonder if the move against Ukraine was not because of demographic problems or Ukraine's military continuing to strengthen, but the fact that Ukraine was working with various O&G companies to exploit her resources - Russia and the Oligarchs stood to lose a lot of money if Ukraine was able to supplant Russian O&G.

/endZeihanrant

Edited May 2, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[Captainant 27,661]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

One other thing that ties into that @Goredho - Peter Zeihan's stuff ties into a lot of the above, and I like a lot of Peter Zeihan's stuff - he can clearly articulate various ideas, play out end games, etc.

But it seems like in most of his videos these days, at some point he fixates on the notion that Russia absolutely positively has to conquer not only Ukraine but like 7 or 8 other countries (including several NATO countries), in order to get Russia A) Another 100 million people, and B) A bunch of geographically defensible areas (mountain ranges, valleys, etc.), and that it's Putin's ultimate goal and legacy.  He seems to really believe that Putin will win in Ukraine and then invade Poland and the Baltic states, and maybe even Finland.

We've seen Putin make moves that were not focused on either population or natural defenses, but instead focused on making himself and the other oligarchs a bunch of money.

We've also seen him do things really half-assed (Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014) when he had the forces to completely finish the job, without the threat of intervention from the West.  If what Zeihan keeps saying is true, and that Putin/Russia are 100% scared of being invaded by NATO, they should have finished the job in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and moved on from there, instead of just leaving troops there.

And prior to 2008, they should have acted against countries joining NATO  - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all joined in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020.  And he definitely should have moved against Moldova well before now.

I do somewhat buy into the move against Ukraine being driven partly by Russia continuing to decline in demographics (Russia is on the back-side of their demographics implosion in the 1990s), but it was an intersection between a decline in Russian manpower and a realization that Ukraine was only going to continue to gain strength economically and militarily.

And I really wonder if the move against Ukraine was not because of demographic problems or Ukraine's military continuing to strengthen, but the fact that Ukraine was working with various O&G companies to exploit her resources - Russia and the Oligarchs stood to lose a lot of money if Ukraine was able to supplant Russian O&G.

/endZeihanrant

I read an interesting article written by a former CIA spy that served in Moscow, and was later a station chief and ran Russian ops at CIA HQ: The Core of Putin's Weakness

The basic thesis is that what Putin is doing is nothing more than a continuation of Tsarist Russia and Soviet boss doctrine. He's got some interesting historical pulls like when a 19th century French aristocrat traveled to russia and described their despotic, repressive, oppressive, and lying government - that happens to nicely encapsulate current Russia.

Quote

And what are those 19th century parallels? To those who study Russia, the 19th century French aristocrat and writer Marquis Astolphe de Custine, is one of the best-known chroniclers of Russian political culture. A travel writer in the style of Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote Democracy in America, de Custine traveled to Russia in 1839, and penned his travelogue Empire of the Czar. De Custine visited Russia in expectation of finding material to support his criticism of France’s representative government, but instead became an advocate for constitutional government and a vocal critic of Russian despotism. He identified a number of 19th century Tsarist traits that can equally describe the Russia of Vladimir Putin, to include domestic repression, institutional incompetence and a culture of lies.

In the lead-up to the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin ramped up repression at home, poisoning his opponents and jailing anyone who criticized the government. In 1839, de Custine described Tsarist Russia as a prison, in which the emperor holds the key. As he commented, “under a despotism, all the laws are calculated to assist oppression; …every indiscretion of speech is equivalent to a crime of high treason [and] the only criminal is the man who goes unpunished.” De Custine concluded that, “other nations have supported oppression, the Russian nation has loved it: it loves it still.” In Russia, “despotic tyranny is permanent.”

While Putin’s use of lies can be attributed to his KGB background, there are also ample historical and cultural antecedents. In his book, de Custine claimed that the Tsarist court displayed a singular “dexterity in lying, a natural proneness to deceit, which is revolting.” He added that lying seemed to be part of a larger cultural instinct to not only hide the truth, but lead people astray. “Russian despotism not only pays little respect to ideas and sentiments, it will also deny facts; it will struggle against evidence, and triumph in the struggle!” wrote de Custine, who further noted that in Russia, “to lie is still to perform the part of a good citizen; to speak the truth, even in apparently unimportant matters, is to conspire.” And as we have seen in the 21st century, instinctual lying has a political cost. As de Custine outlined, “by continually endeavoring to hide truth from the eyes of others, people become at last unable to perceive it themselves.”

In Putin’s Russia, fealty to the Kremlin is valued far more than professionalism. Similar to Stalin in the lead-up to WWII, Putin’s intelligence chiefs reinforced his preconceived notions rather than challenging them. This behavior was also rampant in the 19th century Russian court that de Custine encountered.

According to his chronicle, the Tsarist court suffered from a total absence of independent thought brought on by fear of upsetting the Tsar. According to de Custine, “a profound flatterer in Petersburg is the same as a sublime orator in Paris.” He continued, “a Russian conceals everything,” and “a word of truth dropped in Russia is a spark that may fall on a barrel of gunpowder.” de Custine also noted a familiar similarity that Russians have shared across the centuries. Here, he said, “the greatest pleasure of the people is drunkenness; in other words, forgetfulness…I do not believe that suicide is common there: the people suffer too much to kill themselves.”

Like the Tsars before him, Putin has survived by a willingness to use force at home and abroad, and by maintaining an image of power. Over the past two decades, many observers have used the same phrase to describe Putin’s actions on the international stage — Putin plays a weak hand well. His bullying, threats and lies have protected him from those who might threaten his power.

However, like Tsar Nicholas in WWI, with his invasion of Ukraine, Putin foolishly turned over all his cards and showed his weak hand, seemingly breaking his spell of invincibility. In doing so he has allowed his enemies to better gauge their own strength and position. While it is not clear if Putin has gravely jeopardized his control at home, he has nonetheless weakened himself and Russia, and can no longer bluff that he is playing a winning hand.

As de Custine described 19th century Russia but could well be said of Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, “a government that lives by mystery, and whose strength lies in dissimulation, is afraid of everything.”

There's also some very salient warnings against a nation elevating a leader who instinctively lies, from a historic perspective

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[MissingInAction 25,068]

3 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Just got a processing notification on my Dynamo Kiev jersey.   It has been processed and out for shipment from the distribution center in ......Kiev.  Holy shit!! These glorious basterds are still fulfilling purchases!!!  

We should send back some wolverines swag to the address.

[Fico 1,778]

7 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

If this is true, a major caveat I know, we could see some serious chaos in the back lines of the Russian advance. If they collapse the front at the NE of Khakiv and make it over the river/dam then there is limited natural barriers until E/NE of Izyum. The Ukrainian troops can flood that gap then they can begin to squeeze the troops advancing on Izyum from both sides.

Interactive map link

With how poor the supply chain is for the Russian troops, any form of a breakout for the Ukrainian army will cause chaos. By being able to do this at the stand-alone edge of the advance we now get to see the added bonus of there is a corridor that provides a direct link into Russian territory, namely  Belgorodo, if the Ukrainian forces turn north instead of enveloping the troops to the east.  This is essentially one of the closest areas that has fighting near the Russian border and until now, the Russian army has control over the major thoroughfares heading north into Russia itself from Kharkiv. So now you get to see a major reposition of BTGs to try and ensure that Ukrainian forces don't turn north because of the massive propaganda win that the loss of Belgorodo, and its airport and hospitals, would provide.

 

Like anything else, this would depend on speed of the advance and how quickly the Ukrainians could exploit the gap, but this is a breakthrough in a real bad spot for Russia both militarily and from a pure propaganda perspective.

This literally happened in February-March of 1943. 

[utee94 15,821]

14 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

I wonder where that missile went?  It would be a darn shame if it hit some Russian hardware...

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[Kel Varnsen 8,460]

[The Dog 44,043]

 

[Brisketexan 105,124]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I agree about the tension - the only tension is that which Putin created, and it doesn't affect us directly.  NATO and Ukraine were not existential threats to Putin/Russia - in fact, NATO never invaded a Warsaw Pact country, but you know who did invade  Warsaw Pact countries?  The Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries.  

A big part of the problem with Putin is that he came of age in a job that was committed to paranoia and secrecy, and because the KGB and later FSB were fixated on shit they wanted to do to other countries, they naturally assumed that other countries wanted to do it to them.

It never really occurred to them that the West didn't want to to invade Russia for its resources, at least not militarily.  It was far cheaper and more efficient for Western companies to go in to resource-heavy areas, hire the locals, create the infrastructure, pay off the government officials, etc., and extract those resources, sell them to other countries/companies, wash, rinse, repeat.  The West didn't want to bomb or conquer Russia militarily, they wanted

The problem is that Putin's propaganda overwhelmed all other media within Russia, to the point where he tells everybody that Ukraine/NATO is an existential threat and then he can't backtrack from that - he has to take and keep some territory.

 

The bolded is a VERY common type of terrible reasoning that leads to serious miscalculations.  Person X imposes HIS motivations on to Person Y.  Then, assumes that Person Y will behave exactly as Person X would in a given situation.  In short, it's a mistake to look at an adversary and ask "what would I do in that situation?" to predict what the adversary will actually do.  This seems axiomatic and silly, but it's remarkable how few people actually do it -- the right question to ask is "what would he do in that situation?"  Understanding your opponent's worldview and goals, which may be different, even alien, from yours, is essential to predicting their behavior.

The Russians have spent decades worrying about the United States acting not like the US would act in our situation, but rather how the Russians would act in our situation. 

Layer on the other problems (theirs is a culture built on layers of lies, utter corruption, etc.), and you end up with a massive miscalculation.  Which, if you pick up a history book, is what they have done over and over for centuries.

[Pods 7,552]

Sorry if posted. 

We've seen many of the Russian tanks launching their turrets for distance and seen descriptions that the problem is their ammunition in a circle around the turret.

Here's a cool graphic that shows the problem.

The Russian tank commander and gunner sit on top of the ammunition. A shot through the armor here and they are going for a short trip to space. The driver is in position to be decapitated. Knock out the tank, you've knocked out the crew permanently as well. 

[Sbbruin 21,850]

4 minutes ago, Pods said:

Sorry if posted. 

We've seen many of the Russian tanks launching their turrets for distance and seen descriptions that the problem is their ammunition in a circle around the turret.

Here's a cool graphic that shows the problem.

The Russian tank commander and gunner sit on top of the ammunition. A shot through the armor here and they are going for a short trip to space. The driver is in position to be decapitated. Knock out the tank, you've knocked out the crew permanently as well. 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded is a VERY common type of terrible reasoning that leads to serious miscalculations.  Person X imposes HIS motivations on to Person Y.  Then, assumes that Person Y will behave exactly as Person X would in a given situation.  In short, it's a mistake to look at an adversary and ask "what would I do in that situation?" to predict what the adversary will actually do.  This seems axiomatic and silly, but it's remarkable how few people actually do it -- the right question to ask is "what would he do in that situation?"  Understanding your opponent's worldview and goals, which may be different, even alien, from yours, is essential to predicting their behavior.

The Russians have spent decades worrying about the United States acting not like the US would act in our situation, but rather how the Russians would act in our situation. 

Layer on the other problems (theirs is a culture built on layers of lies, utter corruption, etc.), and you end up with a massive miscalculation.  Which, if you pick up a history book, is what they have done over and over for centuries.

Exactly.  Putin spends his early career in the KGB, an organization with a healthy obsession with turning Western government/military officials into traitors and spies for Russia, and so he automatically assumes that Russians outside of his inner circle have been compromised by the West, because that's what he would do.

So he doesn't tell anybody outside of his immediate circle that he plans on invading Ukraine, so all of the people a few levels below him have no fucking clue that the "exercises" with Belarus are really getting troops in position.  Putin publicly said they were just exercises and he scoffed at the idea of invading.  They prepare for exercises in a friendly country, where they'd have access to any supplies they need, and not a fucking invasion where they'd have to carry everything with them, and where they'd have to assume they'd have accidents, damage, etc. to their vehicles.

He cripples the invasion even before it starts, simply because the people in the invasion don't know it's an invasion until they are told to cross the border.

[Bevo 13,577]

7 minutes ago, Pods said:

Sorry if posted. 

We've seen many of the Russian tanks launching their turrets for distance and seen descriptions that the problem is their ammunition in a circle around the turret.

Here's a cool graphic that shows the problem.

The Russian tank commander and gunner sit on top of the ammunition. A shot through the armor here and they are going for a short trip to space. The driver is in position to be decapitated. Knock out the tank, you've knocked out the crew permanently as well. 

It looks like the Leopard and M1 need to be driven by midgets with crappy posture.

[pops 6,984]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded is a VERY common type of terrible reasoning that leads to serious miscalculations.  Person X imposes HIS motivations on to Person Y.  Then, assumes that Person Y will behave exactly as Person X would in a given situation.  In short, it's a mistake to look at an adversary and ask "what would I do in that situation?" to predict what the adversary will actually do.  This seems axiomatic and silly, but it's remarkable how few people actually do it -- the right question to ask is "what would he do in that situation?"  Understanding your opponent's worldview and goals, which may be different, even alien, from yours, is essential to predicting their behavior.

The Russians have spent decades worrying about the United States acting not like the US would act in our situation, but rather how the Russians would act in our situation. 

Layer on the other problems (theirs is a culture built on layers of lies, utter corruption, etc.), and you end up with a massive miscalculation.  Which, if you pick up a history book, is what they have done over and over for centuries.

It's ingrained in everyone over there. About a decade ago I bought a specialty European auto shop. Owner and head mechanic was Bosnian. I know... never ussr but I'm rolling... and he was a great mechanic. Certified BMW at their facility in Munich. Came to the US in late 90s and just started working. Finally had his own place.  8 bays all with lifts in a market that should have been killing it because the dealer was horrible. Had factory diagnostic hardware and software for bmw, porsche and Mercedes. But their numbers never made sense. Couldn't keep customers or employees for shit. So we came in,  kept him on and took over the customer facing side of things. Blew the fuck up and he couldn't understand it. It's because he was raised to believe if you aren't fucking someone then you're getting fucked. He never could grasp the concept of mutual benefactors. 

That's where Russia is. They look at everything through the prism of what would we do in their shoes. Not what would they do in their best interest. 

[Parliament 14,258]

9 minutes ago, Bevo said:

It looks like the Leopard and M1 need to be driven by midgets with crappy posture.

I think you're joking, and you know those pics aren't to scale.

That said, I've read that Russia has a rule that tankers can't be more than 5'8" or something.  No room.

[MillerEP 30,455]

 

[Pods 7,552]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

I think you're joking, and you know those pics aren't to scale.

That said, I've read that Russia has a rule that tankers can't be more than 5'8" or something.  No room.

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

I read an interesting article written by a former CIA spy that served in Moscow, and was later a station chief and ran Russian ops at CIA HQ: The Core of Putin's Weakness

The basic thesis is that what Putin is doing is nothing more than a continuation of Tsarist Russia and Soviet boss doctrine. He's got some interesting historical pulls like when a 19th century French aristocrat traveled to russia and described their despotic, repressive, oppressive, and lying government - that happens to nicely encapsulate current Russia.

And I get Russia's historic obsession with warm water ports and natural defensive barriers, and trying to project itself as a respectable (and feared) empire, it's ingrained in their psyche, and they've been invaded many times historically, and a lack of warm water ports can cripple their economy and their military, so there's a lot of insecurity.

But they have the largest number of nukes in the world.  They no longer need mountain ranges to protect them.  

No countries are going to invade them.

Which makes me circle back to the invasion of Ukraine being partly/mostly economic. 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

 

[The Dog 44,043]

 

[Born to Run 6,569]

 

While Putin’s use of lies can be attributed to his KGB background, there are also ample historical and cultural antecedents. In his book, de Custine claimed that the Tsarist court displayed a singular “dexterity in lying, a natural proneness to deceit, which is revolting.” He added that lying seemed to be part of a larger cultural instinct to not only hide the truth, but lead people astray. “Russian despotism not only pays little respect to ideas and sentiments, it will also deny facts; it will struggle against evidence, and triumph in the struggle!” wrote de Custine, who further noted that in Russia, “to lie is still to perform the part of a good citizen; to speak the truth, even in apparently unimportant matters, is to conspire.” And as we have seen in the 21st century, instinctual lying has a political cost. As de Custine outlined, “by continually endeavoring to hide truth from the eyes of others, people become at last unable to perceive it themselves.”

This cultural embrace of lying seems to be the common thread of authoritarian nations.  Sure, a lot of it is also that an oppressed populace has to go along with the lie out of self-preservation even if they don’t like it.  But there are many places in the world like Russia where they’ve had opportunity to break free of the authoritarian yoke, and they can’t do it.  And those places all seem to have a culture where, basically, lying and cheating to gain an advantage are considered appropriate.  
I suppose in theory it is possible to have an authoritarian regime where personal property rights are protected, contracts are enforced, objective truth is allowed to disseminate instead of the propaganda of those in power, etc.  But has such a place ever really existed?  And I guess, if you get down to do it, can people who don’t value truth even value freedom?  Why would they ever demand a system based on rule of law and individual rights if their worldview is basically that life is about fucking over other people any way you can to get an advantage?  
The Superman platform - “Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life” - was actually pretty spot on, especially compared to the alternative. 
That's startling simplistic and basee on some niave dancing all around colonialism and xenophobia. Whether you meant to or not.

We've been within a cunt hair from the abyss more than a few times here. Freedom is a precarious state.

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

 

[Pescado_Rojo 19,416]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Wheelhouse

[Pato del Muerto 52,494]

If the Chinese decide to buy all of the corn russia offers it, knowing it is stolen from Ukraine, is that enough to trigger economic sanctions against them?  
 

Do they have us too much by the balls financially for us to do anything irrespective of their behavior?

[Auto Driller 2,505]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If the Chinese decide to buy all of the corn russia offers it, knowing it is stolen from Ukraine, is that enough to trigger economic sanctions against them?  
 

Do they have us too much by the balls financially for us to do anything irrespective of their behavior?

I believe we could do that very legitimately. Chinas loyalty to the dollar is much stronger than Vladimir Putin. They don’t want nuclear war. If anything, it benefits them more for Russia to be defeated so they can feed on the carcass. If we threaten, they will not do business with Russia.

[immamac 42,847]

5 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

I believe we could do that very legitimately. Chinas loyalty to the dollar is much stronger than Vladimir Putin. They don’t want nuclear war. If anything, it benefits them more for Russia to be defeated so they can feed on the carcass. If we threaten, they will not do business with Russia.

Not sure if this is true, but it’s definitely not something they would just do as the optics are pretty horrible. 

[Johnny Chimpo 478]

You guys have these regimes all wrong. They’ll do it in a heartbeat while claiming it’s all legitimately Russian grown grains, and denying any evidence to the otherwise. 

[Thatguy 8,698]

  Russian Wife encouraging her husband to rape Ukranian women. Russian people are different...

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,659]

19 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

If anything, it benefits them more for Russia to be defeated so they can feed on the carcass.

A defeated Russia would be fantastic for China's military-industrial complex - lots of contracts that Russia won't be able to fulfill (due to the sanctions, etc.), and in general it would help out with China's own military purchases as well.

[Bevo 13,577]

27 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If the Chinese decide to buy all of the corn russia offers it, knowing it is stolen from Ukraine, is that enough to trigger economic sanctions against them?  
 

Do they have us too much by the balls financially for us to do anything irrespective of their behavior?

China only wants the baby corn.