Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Schulz2.0 29245]

 

[The Dog 44775]

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

[atomheartbevo 90550]

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

Lots of discussion in the comments and in another clip of this video about how social media and the availability of phones for everybody could take small-scale mutiny like what you see above, and ramp it up into something much larger, because these clips are getting passed around inside of Russia.  A hundred years ago, an incident like this would only be known to the people who were in the scene.  Now, hundreds of thousands and even millions can see this stuff minutes after it happens.

Once winter truly sets in and all of those missing winter uniforms really start to impact soldiers, I think you’ll see some serious shit.

[atomheartbevo 90550]

More mutiny

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

We know the death tolls are much higher, but these are actual verified.

 

[Chad Fuck 18094]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

We know the death tolls are much higher, but these are actual verified.

 

20% casualty rate before reaching contact with the opposing force.  Well done Russia!  You do Ukraine's work for them!

[InkaUtexas 26808]

Reconstruction is going to be a massive undertaking. 

 

[Chad Fuck 18094]

3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Reconstruction is going to be a massive undertaking. 

 

Quote

We can also start charging the Russians for their wanton destruction of critical infrastructure, which the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has rightly called “acts of pure terror” and “war crimes.” I’ve advocated for monthsthat we need to turn Russia’s frozen foreign reserves into an escrow account for Ukrainian reconstruction. And we should let the Russian people know that with each criminal missile barrage, they will be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/opinion/ukraine-war-russia-putin.html

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13710]

Russia is going to screw over their mobilized troops for less than $5,000 each? Not surprised but it shows how the govt and economy is struggling.

they could just print more money but perhaps that much of a cash infusion would negatively impact the rest of the economy with inflation. 

[InkaUtexas 26808]

2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/opinion/ukraine-war-russia-putin.html

 

That entire area (East Ukraine) will need to be cleared before anything can happen. Not a fun undertaking. 

[Chad Fuck 18094]

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

That entire area (East Ukraine) will need to be cleared before anything can happen. Not a fun undertaking. 

It'll take decades.  Look at Southeast Asia post Vietnam.  

The Ukrainians are ready though.  Even back in March I recall hearing a Uke on NPR who was in charge of rebuilding and they've already got their plan to rebuild with modern Western style infrastructure.  Granted, funding is always an issue, but I like where their heads are.  

[Parliament 14566]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

....less than $5,000 each?...

they could just print more money but perhaps that much of a cash infusion would negatively impact the rest of the economy with inflation. 

The American Federal Reserve:

[The Dog 44775]

 

[texastough 1142]

I made a post a few months ago, looking at the daily casualty number claimed by Ukraine. At the time, the number had been 100-200 per day, and suddenly jumped up to 300-400 per day for a couple of weeks. I think that one coincided with the arrival of HIMARS and western artillery.

I know the front line hasn't moved much in a month, but the casualty numbers are bananas right now:

October 29: 550

October 30: 950

October 31: 620

November 1: 650

November 2: 800

The five days before that were 470, 480, 480, 320, 480. If true, that means Russia has lost 5,800 troops in the last ten days. Since Ukraine has not been making big gains, do these numbers reflect large numbers of mobiks finally making it to the front lines? Whatever the explanation, it is hard to see Russia lasting too long with that kind of attrition. I wonder what the Ukrainians have planned for them when the ground freezes up. 

[tx 3 putt 78477]

 

[tx 3 putt 78477]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[The Dog 44775]

 

[KYHorn 17568]

Good thread:

 

 

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[bolverk 30245]

Not great; not terrible. Some cold comfort that they've only discussed it but haven't moved to act.

Russian Military Leaders Discussed Use of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Officials Say
The conversations alarmed the Biden administration because they showed how frustrated Moscow had become over its battlefield setbacks in Ukraine.

WASHINGTON — Senior Russian military leaders recently had conversations to discuss when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, contributing to heightened concern in Washington and allied capitals, according to multiple senior American officials.

President Vladimir V. Putin was not a part of the conversations, which were held against the backdrop of Russia’s intensifying nuclear rhetoric and battlefield setbacks.

But the fact that senior Russian military leaders were even having the discussions alarmed the Biden administration because it showed how frustrated Russian generals were about their failures on the ground, and suggests that Mr. Putin’s veiled threats to use nuclear weapons might not just be words.

Still, American officials said they had seen no evidence that the Russians were moving nuclear weapons into place or taking other tactical measures to prepare for a strike.

The intelligence about the conversations was circulated inside the U.S. government in mid-October.

U.S. officials would not describe the scenarios the military leaders considered for use of a nuclear weapon. However, William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director, has previously said that Mr. Putin’s “potential desperation” to extract a victory in Ukraine and setbacks in the war could lead Russia to use one.

John F. Kirby, a National Security Council official, declined to comment on “the particulars of this reporting.”

“We’ve been clear from the outset that Russia’s comments about the potential use of nuclear weapons are deeply concerning, and we take them seriously,” Mr. Kirby said. “We continue to monitor this as best we can, and we see no indications that Russia is making preparations for such use.”

cont'd:

Spoiler

The Pentagon estimates that Russia has a stockpile of as many as 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed to be used on battlefields to overwhelm conventional forces. No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in combat, but one could be deployed any number of ways, including by missile or artillery shell.

Tactical nuclear weapons carry lower yields and are meant to be used at shorter ranges than the warheads carried on intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Military experts say the use of a nuclear weapon — for the first time in more than 75 years — would fundamentally change the shape of war. Although the resulting destruction would depend on many factors, including the weapon’s size and the winds, even a small nuclear explosion could cause thousands of deaths and render parts of Ukraine uninhabitable.

Mr. Putin has sole authority over whether to use a tactical device and would make the decision to deploy one regardless of the views of his generals.

The new intelligence surfaced when Moscow was also promoting the baseless notion that Ukraine was planning to use a so-called dirty bomb — a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material. And it came amid a flurry of contacts between U.S. and other Western officials and their Russian counterparts, including two calls between Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and the Russian defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu.

While the risk of further escalation remains troublingly high, Biden administration officials and U.S. allies also say that the phone calls between Western and Russian counterparts late last month helped ease some of the nuclear tensions. A speech by Mr. Putin last Thursday in which he denied that Moscow was preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine further lowered the temperature, according to some of the officials.

“We see no need for that,” Mr. Putin said in his speech. “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.”

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February and suffered significant casualties, Mr. Putin himself has fanned fears that he might resort to a nuclear weapon.

A European official said the speech was seen among allies as part of Mr. Putin’s regular pattern of inflaming tensions, watching the reaction of the West and his own public, then taking steps to calm the situation.

Russia conducted an annual military exercise last week testing nuclear-capable missiles. Mr. Austin said U.S. officials did not believe the maneuvers were “some kind of cover activity” to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine.

In Washington, administration officials say they still do not think Mr. Putin has made plans to use a tactical nuclear weapon or even a dirty bomb.

“We have not seen anything to indicate that Putin has made a decision to use a dirty bomb,” Mr. Austin told reporters at the Pentagon last Thursday. He said that even talk of the use of nuclear weapons was “dangerous.”

But he said the administration was “certainly concerned about escalation,” as it has been since the war started.

“It would be the first time a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years,” he said. “If this happened, we have been clear from the very beginning that you would see a very significant response from the international community.”

Biden administration officials have steadfastly refused to publicly describe what that response would be, but the president has indicated he has no plans to retaliate with an American nuclear device.

“I’m the guy that makes the recommendation to my boss on what we should do and how we should do it, and so I’ll make sure that he has credible responses that are actually effective in terms of what we want to do,” Mr. Austin said, without elaborating.

For Mr. Putin, using a smaller-yield, tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine presents more complications than ordering the firing of a strategic weapon, like an ICBM. Moving a tactical nuclear weapon is not simply a matter of giving an order and having two people turn keys.

There would be practical steps that Russian commanders would be alerted to be ready to carry out, including how to mitigate any risk to Russian military personnel in the blast area.

“If there’s an order from the Kremlin, it can’t just magically happen,” Peter B. Zwack, a retired one-star Army general who was the American defense attaché in Moscow from 2012 to 2014, said in an interview last week.

From the beginning of the war, American intelligence agencies have been looking for signs that Mr. Putin is taking preparatory steps to use a nuclear weapon, such as undeclared nuclear exercises or strategic forces being put on alert.

But American officials said that the warning systems to detect such steps were imperfect, and that there was no guarantee that military or intelligence officials would be able to give the White House much advance warning. That is one reason the intelligence about the Russian discussions was viewed with such interest.

With the high-level nuclear discussions, the Russian military is weighing what might prompt Moscow’s use of a tactical weapon. And any additional intense discussions among senior leaders about the use of a nuclear weapon is something American officials have been profoundly concerned about — especially if Russia’s army in the south of Ukraine were to collapse.

Tensions over nuclear weapon use have been rising steadily since Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive in early September.

Since then, Mr. Putin has taken steps to escalate the conflict — calling for a mobilization, annexing territory in Ukraine, getting more directly involved in war planning, and approving a campaign to attack and degrade the electrical power grid of Ukraine with cruise missiles and Iranian drones.

Those steps have not changed Russia’s fortunes, and Ukrainian forces continue to move forward on fronts in the northeast and the south.

Still, some of those escalatory moves, like bringing in more troops, could have more impact on the battlefield by early next year.

Officials expect intense fighting to continue into next month, but muddier conditions and colder weather in the next few weeks could force a pause into earlier next year.

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

3 hours ago, texastough said:

I made a post a few months ago, looking at the daily casualty number claimed by Ukraine. At the time, the number had been 100-200 per day, and suddenly jumped up to 300-400 per day for a couple of weeks. I think that one coincided with the arrival of HIMARS and western artillery.

I know the front line hasn't moved much in a month, but the casualty numbers are bananas right now:

October 29: 550

October 30: 950

October 31: 620

November 1: 650

November 2: 800

The five days before that were 470, 480, 480, 320, 480. If true, that means Russia has lost 5,800 troops in the last ten days. Since Ukraine has not been making big gains, do these numbers reflect large numbers of mobiks finally making it to the front lines? Whatever the explanation, it is hard to see Russia lasting too long with that kind of attrition. I wonder what the Ukrainians have planned for them when the ground freezes up. 

I think it’s a combination of untrained recruits, Russia losing its tactical artillery “umbrella” and Ukraine having access to Excalibur shells and other precision equipment (more drones, etc.).  Ukraine has been able to both protect its troops with artillery, and also make extremely precise hits, while Russian troops don’t have any decent air support and they are either advancing or retreating without significant Russian artillery coverage due to logistics and ammo supplies.

This was back in April when Russia had superiority in terms of barrel artillery.  They wouldn’t do that now because of Ukrainian counter-fire batteries and because they probably couldn’t keep such a large group supplied.

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

United States -35%
Germany -3%
Netherlands +32%
China +64%
India +310%
Turkey +198%
Japan +13%
Sweden -76%
South Korea -17%
Norway +16%
United Kingdom -79%
South Africa +10%
Belgium +81%
Spain +57%
Brazil +106%
Saudi Arabia +36%
Canada -57%
Portugal -44%

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[SydneyCarton 49354]

24 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

United States -35%
Germany -3%
Netherlands +32%
China +64%
India +310%
Turkey +198%
Japan +13%
Sweden -76%
South Korea -17%
Norway +16%
United Kingdom -79%
South Africa +10%
Belgium +81%
Spain +57%
Brazil +106%
Saudi Arabia +36%
Canada -57%
Portugal -44%

Well this is fucking infuriating. I started at "Wait, the US has only cut 35%" and then it just gets fucking more insane every step after the fact. 

[tx 3 putt 78477]

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

Putin really blinked on the grain deal.  I think it was a case of Turkey called his bluff, and his choice was to either stand in the outside and whine about it, or sit down and shut up and pretend like Russia is still a part of it.

As for nukes, still not going to happen.  Look at a map of Ukraine. Cross out all of the areas in the west and north where fallout could drift into NATO territory (either airborne or waterborne).  Cross out all of the areas where it could drift into Belarus.  Cross out all of the areas where it could drift into Russia or impact Russian forces (who are not equipped for an NBC battlefield).  Cross out the areas in Ukraine directly north of Crimea (along the river)  that could send contaminated fresh water into Crimea.  

You are suddenly left with a very small area that is full of civilians, and it’s no longer a “battlefield” nuke, but a nuke aimed at civilian cities.  China and India will bail so fast on Russia, and I’d imagine that Iran would find itself in n even worse position (Israel could have a blank check), because China has enough problems and doesn’t do enough trade with Russia to risk their entire economy being taken down by the G7, and same with India.

And when I say Russians are not equipped for an NBC battlefield, I don’t think I’ve seen a single Russian soldier with any protective gear, and given how shoddily maintained their vehicles are, those will provide no protection.  They could have 1.5 million gas masks on paper, and the reality is that it’d be actually a thousand masks and a shitload of empty boxes piled up in a warehouse to give the appearance of a full supply of gas masks.

And nukes escalate things inside of Russia.  You just think there are small mutinies happening now.

[tx 3 putt 78477]

 

[atomheartbevo 90550]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Well this is fucking infuriating. I started at "Wait, the US has only cut 35%" and then it just gets fucking more insane every step after the fact. 

It’s only $1.5 billion or so.  Sucks but we are sending that to Ukraine every few weeks.

The bigger thing is cutting them off from what they need to resupply and rearm their military. That’s what I’d like to see the numbers on. The fact they are getting something as simple as artillery shells from North Korea speaks volumes about the sanctions.

[SydneyCarton 49354]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Putin really blinked on the grain deal.  I think it was a case of Turkey called his bluff, and his choice was to either stand in the outside and whine about it, or sit down and shut up and pretend like Russia is still a part of it.

As for nukes, still not going to happen.  Look at a map of Ukraine. Cross out all of the areas in the west and north where fallout could drift into NATO territory (either airborne or waterborne).  Cross out all of the areas where it could drift into Belarus.  Cross out all of the areas where it could drift into Russia or impact Russian forces (who are not equipped for an NBC battlefield).  Cross out the areas in Ukraine directly north of Crimea (along the river)  that could send contaminated fresh water into Crimea.  

You are suddenly left with a very small area that is full of civilians, and it’s no longer a “battlefield” nuke, but a nuke aimed at civilian cities.  China and India will bail so fast on Russia, and I’d imagine that Iran would find itself in n even worse position (Israel could have a blank check), because China has enough problems and doesn’t do enough trade with Russia to risk their entire economy being taken down by the G7, and same with India.

And when I say Russians are not equipped for an NBC battlefield, I don’t think I’ve seen a single Russian soldier with any protective gear, and given how shoddily maintained their vehicles are, those will provide no protection.  They could have 1.5 million gas masks on paper, and the reality is that it’d be actually a thousand masks and a shitload of empty boxes piled up in a warehouse to give the appearance of a full supply of gas masks.

And nukes escalate things inside of Russia.  You just think there are small mutinies happening now.

I bolded all of the things in your post that I don't think have ever crossed Putin's mind as shit he fucking cares about. 

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s only $1.5 billion or so.  Sucks but we are sending that to Ukraine every few weeks.

The bigger thing is cutting them off from what they need to resupply and rearm their military. That’s what I’d like to see the numbers on. The fact they are getting something as simple as artillery shells from North Korea speaks volumes about the sanctions.

The percentages matter. Just as much as how Estonia has given more than 50% of what they have defensively to Ukraine. Percentages matter. 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[MillerEP 30842]

 

[Jameslaw121 4485]

57 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Well this is fucking infuriating. I started at "Wait, the US has only cut 35%" and then it just gets fucking more insane every step after the fact. 

That graphic is pretty inaccurate. Most of Russians exports are energy (Oil, gas, coal)

A) The five year average pre-invasion includes the COVID years. Making the average imports much smaller than normal.

B) They're averaging the months since the invasion. We rolled out sanctions, as well time for them to begin taking effect.

If you look at the US, since the invasion began to where we are now. We've dropped about 80% in imports. Not 20%

[Hook1997 5487]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Well this is fucking infuriating. I started at "Wait, the US has only cut 35%" and then it just gets fucking more insane every step after the fact. 

We should be more like UK and Sweden, no matter the total amounts, atleast they were serious about not trading with Russia and cut over 75%.  A 35% cut is kinda embarrassing at this point.  

Edited November 2, 2022 by Hook1997
Post above, evidently we were just slow to cut vs how UK did it.

[MillerEP 30842]

the seven elite Putena stormtroopers were freed.