Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[atomheartbevo 89656]

50 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

I found this article to be a fascinating read about Ada and the 777. 
 

http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/boeing.html

It is/was in a shitload of our military aircraft (F-15s, etc.) as well.

Edit: Always kind of fascinated with it, because I had to take a class in it in '91 because a professor was one of the contributors or something.

Edited May 4, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89656]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

Maybe we should send over the Afghans too. Hey Russia remember these guys?

There are Afghan volunteers in Ukraine fighting the Russians.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

I like that Ukraine is talking about taking Crimea back.  That's got to freak Putin a little out, or at least the people below him (who may or may not be filtering his news).

The thought of losing Crimea over a special military operation initiated by Putin would be the end of his political "career".

[Bevo 13576]

29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

There are Afghan volunteers in Ukraine fighting the Russians.

I guess Russians are easier to kill than Taliban.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

And going forward, given their demographic issues, this will have a much more severe impact on their military.  

[atomheartbevo 89656]

Lots of questions about how they will replace all of the lost equipment, and the impact that will have.

 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

[atomheartbevo 89656]

For those curious about Putin being attacked from within

https://puck.news/putin-vs-his-oligarchs/?utm_code=julia@puck.news

 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

Looking at a map, if they retake that island and put some decent anti-air and anti-ship systems on it, Russians can't get to Moldova.

And we know that Russian ships are staying away from the unoccupied Ukrainian coastline.

Edit: This is the video from the attack few days ago.  They've hit it since then, but no video of that I guess.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

23 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I guess Russians are easier to kill than Taliban.

The Taliban are better trained.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

2 minutes ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

The Taliban are better trained.

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

And we know that Russian ships are staying away from the unoccupied Ukrainian coastline.

Speaking of which, what ever happened with that Harpoon delivery?  BS?  I've never heard of one being launched from a truck (or something other than a plane or ship/boat of some sort), but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

7 minutes ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

Speaking of which, what ever happened with that Harpoon delivery?  BS?  I've never heard of one being launched from a truck (or something other than a plane or ship/boat of some sort), but that doesn't mean a whole lot.

 

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

[Slacks 6819]

30 minutes ago, MadBurgerMaker said:

The Taliban are better trained.

The Taliban had more conviction.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

Some perspective.  This is why Russia needs so many more soldiers (actual infantry, not just clerks or drivers or crew members of various systems).

 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

Paging @Days.Off or @DaysOff

 

[HOOKEM4 5036]

Can they just pull the ole John deere on the aircraft and lock systems out?

[atomheartbevo 89656]

Calling out The NY Times for lazy writing

 

[MillerEP 30455]

 

[justhookit 4191]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Calling out The NY Times for lazy writing

 

Did you read the nyntimes article? That’s a complete distortion of what it was about.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

5 minutes ago, justhookit said:

Did you read the nyntimes article? That’s a complete distortion of what it was about.

Yes, I did.  You can to (I've quoted it below).  An article with a whole lot of people who can't figure out why Russia isn't doing more or hitting Ukraine harder.  The article doesn't address Russian incompetence and the fact that Russian equipment has been stored improperly, or is not matching what Russia claims it had in reserves, and the fact that they are sending in BTGs that are undermanned and under-equipped.

And the article acts like Russia is acting with restraint, while ignoring the areas that it's leveled.

Sure, they'll mention this:

Quote

Russia has also struggled with its precision munitions — missiles or rockets with guidance systems. Many of those weapons have failed to work properly, and Russian supplies of the weapons are limited. Strikes on rail lines or moving convoys must be very precise to be effective.

But then they follow it up with this:

Quote

 

Other officials have argued that Moscow is eager to avoid destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure too severely, in the possibly misguided hope that it can still take control of the country. Russia would be stuck with a huge rebuilding job if it took over cities devastated by its own bombing.

A senior American defense official said that Mr. Putin may have avoided destroying Ukraine’s rail network because he did not want to hurt his own ability to move equipment and troops around the country. The Russians have been more focused on destroying weapon storage areas than the rail network.

It's been 26 or 27 days since Russia gave up on Kyiv, and they still don't fully control Mariupol, and they are getting pushed back from Kharkiv.  The Russians certainly do not believe they can take control of Ukraine, else they would have kept a lot of troops in northern Ukraine.

Nobody on the Russian side is holding back because they think they can miraculously retake the areas that Ukraine has pushed them out of, and then head west over the Dniper.

Full article:

Quote

Russia’s war against Ukraine has leveled cities, killed tens of thousands of people and forced millions of others from their homes.

But quietly, some military analysts and Western officials are asking why the onslaught has not been even worse.

Russia could be going after Ukrainian railways, roads and bridges more aggressively to try to stanch the flow of Western weapons to the front line. It could have bombed more of the infrastructure around the capital, Kyiv, to make it harder for Western leaders to visit President Volodymyr Zelensky in shows of unity and resolve. And it could be doing far more to inflict pain on the West, whether by cyberattack, sabotage or more cutoffs of energy exports to Europe.

Part of the reason appears to be sheer incompetence: The opening weeks of the war demonstrated vividly that Russia’s military was far less capable than believed before the invasion. But American and European officials also say that President Vladimir V. Putin’s tactics in recent weeks have appeared to be remarkably cautious, marked by a slow-moving offensive in eastern Ukraine, a restrained approach to taking out Ukrainian infrastructure and an avoidance of actions that could escalate the conflict with NATO.

The apparent restraint on the ground stands in contrast to the bombast on Russian state television, where Moscow is described as being locked in an existential fight against the West and where the use of nuclear weapons is openly discussed. The issue is whether, as the war grinds on, Mr. Putin will change tack and intensify the war.

That is a particularly urgent question ahead of the Victory Day holiday in Russia next Monday, when Mr. Putin traditionally presides over a grandiose parade marking the Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany and gives a militaristic speech. Ben Wallace, the British defense secretary, predicted last week that Mr. Putin would use the speech for an official declaration of war and a mass mobilization of the Russian people.

American and European officials say that they have not seen any on-the-ground movements that would show any much larger push with additional troops beginning on May 9 or soon after. Those officials now expect a slower, grinding campaign inside Ukraine. But they do not disagree that Mr. Putin could use the speech to declare a wider war and a deeper national effort to fight it.

For the moment, Mr. Putin appears to be in a military holding pattern, one that is allowing Ukraine to regroup and stock up on Western weaponry. On Monday, a senior Pentagon official called Russia’s latest offensive in eastern Ukraine “very cautious, very tepid.” In Russia, there is grumbling that the military is fighting with one hand tied behind its back, with the strategy and aims not understood by the public.

“This is a strange, special kind of war,” Dmitri Trenin, until recently the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, said in a phone interview from outside Moscow. “Russia has set some rather strict limits for itself, and this is not being explained in any way — which raises a lot of questions, first of all, among Russian citizens.”

Mr. Trenin is one of the few analysts from his think tank, shuttered last month by the Russian government, who chose to stay in Russia after the war began. He said that he was struggling to explain why the Kremlin was fighting at “less than half strength.”

Why isn’t Russia bombing more bridges and railway networks, he asked, when they are allowing Ukraine’s military to receive more of the West’s increasingly lethal weapons deliveries with every passing day? Why are Western leaders — like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday — still able to visit Kyiv safely?

“I find this strange, and I can’t explain it,” Mr. Trenin said.

To be sure, Russian missile strikes have targeted infrastructure across Ukraine, including an important bridge in the country’s southwest on Monday and the runway of the Odesa airport on Saturday. But across the Atlantic, officials and analysts are asking themselves similar questions as Mr. Trenin.

For weeks, officials in Washington have discussed why the Russian military has not been more aggressive in trying to destroy the supply lines that send Western arms shipments into Ukraine. Part of the answer, officials say, is that Ukrainian air defense continues to threaten Russian aircraft, and the deeper Russian planes go into Ukraine the greater the chance they are going to be shot down.

Russia has also struggled with its precision munitions — missiles or rockets with guidance systems. Many of those weapons have failed to work properly, and Russian supplies of the weapons are limited. Strikes on rail lines or moving convoys must be very precise to be effective.

Other officials have argued that Moscow is eager to avoid destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure too severely, in the possibly misguided hope that it can still take control of the country. Russia would be stuck with a huge rebuilding job if it took over cities devastated by its own bombing.

A senior American defense official said that Mr. Putin may have avoided destroying Ukraine’s rail network because he did not want to hurt his own ability to move equipment and troops around the country. The Russians have been more focused on destroying weapon storage areas than the rail network.

American officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private military and intelligence assessments.

Then there is the question of why Russia hasn’t hit back harder against the West. The Kremlin narrative is of an existential war with NATO being fought on Ukrainian soil, but Russia is the one taking military losses while the West keeps a safe distance and supplies weapons that kill Russian soldiers.

“A lot of people in this town are asking why they haven’t retaliated yet,” said Samuel Charap, a former U.S. State Department official in Washington and a Russia analyst with the RAND Corporation. “It seems low probability that the U.S. and its allies will experience no blowback from having put this many Russian soldiers in their graves.”

Russia has the tools to do widespread damage to the West. The gas shortages caused by the cyberattack on the Colonial Pipeline last year showed the disruption that Russian hacking can inflict on American infrastructure. Berlin has warned that a cutoff of Russian gas could throw the German economy into a recession.

And then there is Moscow’s world-leading nuclear arsenal, with an estimated 5,977 warheads: Their catastrophic capability is being hyped in ever-shriller terms in the Russian media.

“You thought you could destroy us with other people’s hands and observe from the sidelines from a safe distance?” Sergei Mironov, an outspoken hawk in Russia’s Parliament, said on Saturday, claiming that his country’s new intercontinental ballistic missilecould destroy Britain in a single strike. “It won’t work, gentlemen — you’ll have to pay for it all in full!” he added.

Mr. Putin has also warned of retaliation, but he values ambiguity, too. Last year, he said that those crossing a “red line” would face an “asymmetric, fast and tough” response — an indication that the response would come at a time and place of Moscow’s choosing

“Nobody really knows where the red line is,” Mr. Charap, the analyst, said. “I don’t even think the Russians know, because we are in such uncharted waters.”

American and allied officials have debated why Mr. Putin hasn’t tried widespread or more damaging cyberstrikes. Some say that Mr. Putin has been effectively deterred. The Russian military, struggling to make gains in Ukraine, cannot handle a wider war with NATO and does not want to give the alliance any excuse to enter the war more directly.

Others argue that a cyberstrike on a NATO country is one of the few cards Mr. Putin can play and that he may be waiting for a later stage in his campaign to do that.

While Mr. Putin has been unafraid of escalating the rhetoric, his actions have suggested he does not want to do anything that could prompt a wider war.

“The general sense is that he wants to snatch some sort of victory out of this debacle of his,” said the American defense official, suggesting that Mr. Putin was not interested in “borrowing more trouble.”

Before the invasion on Feb. 24, Mr. Trenin, of the Carnegie center, predicted that the Ukrainian military would put up a fierce resistance and that Mr. Putin would discover a lack of political support for Russia in Ukraine. On that, Mr. Trenin turned out to be right.

What he was wrong about, Mr. Trenin said, was the information that aides and commanders would provide to Mr. Putin about Russia’s capabilities, which turned out to be flawed.

Mr. Trenin says he still sees Mr. Putin as fundamentally rational, rather than someone willing to engage in a nuclear war, with a “maniacal determination to destroy mankind.”

“That would not be a mistake — that would be a total departure from rationality,” Mr. Trenin said. “I hope that now I am not wrong.”

[F250 28770]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Lots of questions about how they will replace all of the lost equipment, and the impact that will have.

 

China watching Russia's military go up in smoke.

 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

In regards to The NY Times article, was Mack Brown showing restraint when we went 5-7?

[MadBurgerMaker 404]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

In regards to The NY Times article, was Mack Brown showing restraint when we went 5-7?

Hey, winning all the time isn't good for the kids.

[The Dog 44035]

The only "restraint" Russia has shown is to not use nuclear weapons to wipe Ukraine from the face of the earth. 

 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

 

[justhookit 4191]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yes, I did.  You can to (I've quoted it below).  An article with a whole lot of people who can't figure out why Russia isn't doing more or hitting Ukraine harder.  The article doesn't address Russian incompetence and the fact that Russian equipment has been stored improperly, or is not matching what Russia claims it had in reserves, and the fact that they are sending in BTGs that are undermanned and under-equipped.

And the article acts like Russia is acting with restraint, while ignoring the areas that it's leveled.

Sure, they'll mention this:

But then they follow it up with this:

It's been 26 or 27 days since Russia gave up on Kyiv, and they still don't fully control Mariupol, and they are getting pushed back from Kharkiv.  The Russians certainly do not believe they can take control of Ukraine, else they would have kept a lot of troops in northern Ukraine.

Nobody on the Russian side is holding back because they think they can miraculously retake the areas that Ukraine has pushed them out of, and then head west over the Dniper.

Full article:

Man, you need to take a break. And trust me this is coming from someone who often needs a break from this site or at least hot topics.

it’s in the 3rd freaking paragraph -

“Part of the reason appears to be sheer incompetence: The opening weeks of the war demonstrated vividly that Russia’s military was far less capable than believed before the invasion.”

you are talking tactics, or troops/weapons/vehicles. That’s not what the article is about.

Maybe the headline containing restraint bothered you but that was a headline writer and the article never really even addresses it.

[Rimbo 25921]

I read that NYTimes article, and it was a head-scratcher. Kinda all over the place. Oddly, the most positive about Ukraine's prospects I've read in the NYT since this whole shit began.

[justhookit 4191]

30 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I read that NYTimes article, and it was a head-scratcher. Kinda all over the place. Oddly, the most positive about Ukraine's prospects I've read in the NYT since this whole shit began.

Far as I can tell, and I don’t want to look into it too far, that was a news/op piece that was likely buried somewhere between page 10 and 11. Or it might have been in the comic section. Do they still have that I don’t know?

There was also nothing wrong with it. They flung poo at a bunch of reasons why this hasn’t escalated and asking why Russia hasn’t done certain things, like I don’t know, bomb the shit out of every airfield and supply line NATO has. I’m sure one of the things they hit on is right except they ignored the nuclear/chemical/biological option.  Nowhere did they argue that Putin IS showing restraint. But hey, good twitter headlines for all and my main takeaway is Putin is a fucking idiot.

[956 Worldwide 34708]

There is a difference between showing “restraint” and a miscalculation of the political and military resistance that Russia faces in Ukraine.  Putin’s original war aims were maximalist, however neither the resources he committed or the strategy he used matched those aims.  This points to bad calculations— he thought Ukraine would only offer token resistance, and that miscalculation was only amplified with Russia’s failure to have a coherent strategy to use the forces they did deploy.  It’s not easy to reset the board, and he now has to choose whether to devote far more resources to this than he ever planned. But this isn’t him showing “restraint.”

The “why no retaliation against NATO” is easier to understand.  The article doesn’t look at how NATO has communicated with Putin.  Just like he expected token Ukraine resistance, he also expected token western condemnation. The extent of sanctions, weapons supplies, intelligence sharing, and more has gone far beyond what Putin thought NATO was willing to do.  This has caused them to pause and reassess what the consequences could be if Russia chose to up the ante directly against the Alliance.  
 

The lesson here is that Russia will hesitate when it’s met with strength, but is emboldened by appeasement and dialogue— something many Russia and European security types have argued for years now. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[Bevo 13576]

Putin dies from Parkancer and goes to hell, but due to his lifetime achievement and hard work, he is given a day off for good behavior.

So he goes to Moscow, enters a bar, and orders a drink.

The bartender asks him for his ID and while Putin fumbles around for identification, he asks the bartender:

-Is Crimea ours?

-Da - Yes, it is.

-And the Donbas?

-Da.

-And Kyiv?

-Da. We got that too.

Putin smiles, transitions to a huge grin and with his shaklng hands shows the bartender his ID.

-The bartender stops pouring Putin's drink and stares at the ID. Sorry, I’m not familiar with that one. You need to show me an EU ID.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

So how does this end? Call your shot.

[Trey3216 15346]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a difference between showing “restraint” and a miscalculation of the political and military resistance that Russia faces in Ukraine.  Putin’s original war aims were maximalist, however neither the resources he committed or the strategy he used matched those aims.  This points to bad calculations— he thought Ukraine would only offer token resistance, and that miscalculation was only amplified with Russia’s failure to have a coherent strategy to use the forces they did deploy.  It’s not easy to reset the board, and he now has to choose whether to devote far more resources to this than he ever planned. But this isn’t him showing “restraint.”

The “why no retaliation against NATO” is easier to understand.  The article doesn’t look at how NATO has communicated with Putin.  Just like he expected token Ukraine resistance, he also expected token western condemnation. The extent of sanctions, weapons supplies, intelligence sharing, and more has gone far beyond what Putin thought NATO was willing to do.  This has caused them to pause and reassess what the consequences could be if Russia chose to up the ante directly against the Alliance.  
 

The lesson here is that Russia will hesitate when it’s met with strength, but is emboldened by appeasement and dialogue— something many Russia and European security types have argued for years now. 

Yep.  Russia talks a big game, and always has.  They view upfront diplomacy and talks as Western weakness, or Western fear of Russian might.  But when Western nations confront Russia immediately with strength and severity, Russia crumbles under the weight of their bravado.  

[RPM 26319]

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Yep.  Russia talks a big game, and always has. 

Patton was right.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

however neither the resources he committed or the strategy he used matched those aims.

 

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This has caused them to pause and reassess what the consequences could be if Russia chose to up the ante directly against the Alliance.

So your position is that Russia has shown restraint. That is the jist of the article. Lots of great discussion here, but folks should welcome when words like "restraint" aptly describe the situation.  

The article is an analysis piece that weighs a lot of differing opinions.  It essentially chalks Russia's poor performance to two factors a) sheer incompetence and b) restraint.  This is list of possible reasons for the apparent restraint pasted directly from the article:

- avoidance of actions that could escalate the conflict with NATO

- Ukrainian air defense continues to threaten Russian aircraft, and the deeper Russian planes go into Ukraine the greater the chance they are going to be shot down

- Russia has also struggled with its precision munitions — missiles or rockets with guidance systems. Many of those weapons have failed to work properly, and Russian supplies of the weapons are limited

- eager to avoid destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure too severely, in the possibly misguided hope that it can still take control of the country.

- A senior American defense official said that Mr. Putin may have avoided destroying Ukraine’s rail network because he did not want to hurt his own ability to move equipment and troops around the country.

All of this along along with the article's assessment concerning cyber attacks is consistent with your position.  

I think the more important perspective/question provided in this article is about whether Putin is still a "fundamentally rationale" actor or if he has "maniacal determination to destroy mankind." The restraint that he has been forced into from various factors (fear of escalation w/ NATO, Ukraine's air defenses, poor supplies, etc.) seems to indicate the former.

[SydneyCarton 48082]

13 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

 

So your position is that Russia has shown restraint. That is the jist of the article. Lots of great discussion here, but folks should welcome when words like "restraint" aptly describe the situation.  

The article is an analysis piece that weighs a lot of differing opinions.  It essentially chalks Russia's poor performance to two factors a) sheer incompetence and b) restraint.  This is list of possible reasons for the apparent restraint pasted directly from the article:

- avoidance of actions that could escalate the conflict with NATO

- Ukrainian air defense continues to threaten Russian aircraft, and the deeper Russian planes go into Ukraine the greater the chance they are going to be shot down

- Russia has also struggled with its precision munitions — missiles or rockets with guidance systems. Many of those weapons have failed to work properly, and Russian supplies of the weapons are limited

- eager to avoid destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure too severely, in the possibly misguided hope that it can still take control of the country.

- A senior American defense official said that Mr. Putin may have avoided destroying Ukraine’s rail network because he did not want to hurt his own ability to move equipment and troops around the country.

All of this along along with the article's assessment concerning cyber attacks is consistent with your position.  

I think the more important perspective/question provided in this article is about whether Putin is still a "fundamentally rationale" actor or if he has "maniacal determination to destroy mankind." The restraint that he has been forced into from various factors (fear of escalation w/ NATO, Ukraine's air defenses, poor supplies, etc.) seems to indicate the former.

If he's shown any restraint, perhaps it's because he's already witnessed how much incompetence and degradation of the military is accurate on the ground. This is debatable considering there's still plenty who believe he doesn't understand just how badly the war operation is going up to this point. But one can beget the other, to a degree.

I will see the activity of the last few days, specifically re-focusing on attacking Urkaine critical infrastructure such as power stations, railways, etc, indicates that the notion of him trying to save that so it won't need to be rebuilt seems to have gone out the window, and belies the idea that Putin doesn't know how badly shit has gone to this point. 

[Orange&White 5525]

28 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Yep.  Russia talks a big game, and always has.  They view upfront diplomacy and talks as Western weakness, or Western fear of Russian might.  But when Western nations confront Russia immediately with strength and severity, Russia crumbles under the weight of their bravado.  

 

Are there other examples of this happening?

I hope you are right but I can't think of anytime this scenario has played out in the past, and it seems like, for now, you are just sort of wishcasting.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Orange&White

[SydneyCarton 48082]

9 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

 

Are there other examples of this happening?

I hope you are right but I can't think of anytime this scenario has played out in the past, and it seems like, for now, you are just sort of wishcasting.

I dunno, have you heard of something called The Soviet Union and what happened to them over time when forced to keep up with the United States and NATO? It was sort of a big deal in the last 50 years of geopolitics. 

[atomheartbevo 89656]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I will see the activity of the last few days, specifically re-focusing on attacking Urkaine critical infrastructure such as power stations, railways, etc, indicates that the notion of him trying to save that so it won't need to be rebuilt seems to have gone out the window, and belies the idea that Putin doesn't know how badly shit has gone to this point. 

Russia is on a timer at this point, and it’s about keeping what they already have.  Russia has to try and stop more of the heavy systems (particularly the howitzers, but also UAVs, etc.) from reaching Eastern Ukraine, because those are game changers that will put Russia on the defensive.  That means hitting the infrastructure with anything they have.

Russia has lost at least 2-3 years of confirmed tank production alone, not to mention other systems that have not been in production for many years.   And because the crews of those tanks getting popped don’t survive, that means that even if they had fresh modern tanks to throw into the fight, they need at least 6-12 months to train replacements, so the axiom about going to war with the army they have holds true - what he has right now is basically the best he will have for the foreseeable future, and it will only get worse as losses pile up.  

[956 Worldwide 34708]

I think we’re kind of talking past each other as to what restraint means. Clearly, Putin has not used every tool in his toolbox against Ukraine.  I would expect nothing else in a war of choice against an opponent that shows no threat to you. I am not sure that a failure to commit the resources needed to achieve his maximalist goals due to miscalculation is restraint, nor do I think that operational constraints imposed on him are restraint, nor do I think “let’s save this shit so we can steal it later” constitutes restraint. 
 

I think to speak of restraint in the context of an armed conflict, it has to include at a minimum care to avoid excess civilian casualties, avoidance of war crimes and atrocities, and carefully selected targets intended to communicate a message along the lines of “this stops if you stop doing what we don’t like.” 

[686 3448]

Yeah I’m no historian but I think we got the nukes moved out of Cuba, got the Wall torn down, “won” the Cold War, and absorbed a bunch of the USSR into NATO, so I think we’ve done ok going head to head with Russia. Proxy wars, etc are more mixed.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

12 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Are there other examples of this happening?

I hope you are right but I can't think of anytime this scenario has played out in the past, and it seems like, for now, you are just sort of wishcasting.

Cuban Missile Crisis? Proxy wars in the Middle East between Israel and other countries?

Our supplying the Mujahideen in Afghanistan was confronting Russia, and definitely helped lead to the Soviet Union collapsing.  They could not maintain that war.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I dunno, have you heard of something called The Soviet Union and what happened to them over time when forced to keep up with the United States and NATO? It was sort of a big deal in the last 50 years of geopolitics. 

Some would even say it caused the collapse of the USSR 30 years ago.

[Pato del Muerto 52491]

Michael sphinx used much restraint on Mike tyson

[Parliament 14257]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

So how does this end? Call your shot.

Russian slowly giving up and slinking back to the ahithole their from.  Other nations will be slow to drop sanctions, if at all.

IMHO, the EU sending troops to Moldova preemptively, for defense, is different than going into Ukraine and attacking Russian troops.  Or am I wrong.

[immamac 42845]

1 minute ago, Parliament said:

Russian slowly giving up and slinking back to the ahithole their from.  Other nations will be slow to drop sanctions, if at all.

IMHO, the EU sending troops to Moldova preemptively, for defense, is different than going into Ukraine and attacking Russian troops.  Or am I wrong.

They aren't giving up shit. You are crazy. They are being defeated and repelled, while attacks are picking up in actually Russia to prevent resupply. You are completely wrong. Russia being defeated will not at all be a cause for lifting sanctions, if Russia retreats and signs a deal to pay for all the destruction they did to Ukraine, returns all the Ukrainians they kidnapped and Putin steps down then MAYBE sanctions begin to soften. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Russian slowly giving up and slinking back to the ahithole their from.

giving up crimea and other regions which i can't spell but they are declaring as autonomous?