Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[atomheartbevo 89799]

23 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I am for supporting Ukraine, but it does take some thinking to understand how it impacts us. We don't need Ukranian O&G and grain. So, at a superficial level, the war doesn't impact us.

It absolutely would affect you and the USA as a whole if Russia was allowed to take Ukraine.

If Russia took Ukraine, Russia would control around 20% of the world's wheat, and 30% of the world's corn production, as well as 60% sunflower oil production.

Russia, a single nation of 140 million people, could fuck with the food supplies/prices of the other nearly 8 billion people in the world.  Putting aside that he could force a rise in prices (which would affect us here as American producers might ship overseas if the price is right, which lowers our supply and raises our prices), he could create food instability in various regions.  Say they create food instability in Central/South America...guess what happens?  A whole shitload of people are going to head for Mexico and the US and swarm our border, causing all kinds of problems.  Wall Street will not look kindly upon businesses working/selling in a Central/South America that is in disarray.  Say he does it in Africa - again, it creates problems for American companies that have interests there, it would generate a rise in piracy in various areas, which means the US Navy will be deployed to those areas.

But wait, there's more.  We have a massive trade/investment relationship with Europe, and Putin/Russia have already said they want to get the band back together against its will, and that when they are finished with Ukraine, they would look elsewhere, including NATO countries.  Now, you can say that he wouldn't be that foolish, but we know he's not all there, which means we will have to ramp up our military deployments to Europe, which will cost the American taxpayer more money, and it will extend our military more than it already is.  And we won't be sending 40 year-old vehicles that we had sitting in long-term storage, that we will be passing off to others, we will be sending high-maintenance modern systems that are expensive to deploy, with a long logistics tail behind them.

And yeah, there's the whole "support a nation that is trying to protect its freedom", but from a purely cynical/financial point of view, it's 100% in our best interest that Russia is defeated in Ukraine.

Putin controlling 20-30% of the world's wheat and corn markets is fucking insane to comprehend.

[Trey3216 15356]

5 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I feel like Biden's team should be spending more effort in distinguishing between how much we have sent in cash payments and new purchases and clearly break out the dollar values for older retired equipment being sent.

The average idiot just keeps seeing "Another $5B in aid sent to Ukraine" and thinks that is why the elevator doesn't work at DFW.

That would be a huge help to be honest.  That’s why i keep tabs on both the righty and lefty responses because it’s damn near the same whine.  Clarity on what is actual money, and what is money spent 30 years ago goes a long fucking way.   

[Schulz2.0 29011]

 

[Gravy Train 974]

I nearly forgot about an important impression Kostiantyn noted in our dialogue last night-- that most Ukrainians who fled Europe for safety at the start of the war share the desire to return, rebuild and settle as quickly as peace is restored.  Many of his software engineers relocated to Romania temporarily, which seemed like an easier route to exit the country in the early days of conflict, but none have the desire to permanently settle there.  We share confidence that the rebuilding effort will be epic and that this fight for their independence will permanently reduce the liklihood of corrpution returning to local offices, that they all realize how poorly prepared they were in 2014, and it's served as a lesson for their culture.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html

Quote

New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.

 

U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.

 

[Bevo 13601]

4 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I feel like Biden's team should be spending more effort in distinguishing between how much we have sent in cash payments and new purchases and clearly break out the dollar values for older retired equipment being sent.

The average idiot just keeps seeing "Another $5B in aid sent to Ukraine" and thinks that is why the elevator doesn't work at DFW.

 

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It absolutely would affect you and the USA as a whole if Russia was allowed to take Ukraine.

If Russia took Ukraine, Russia would control around 20% of the world's wheat, and 30% of the world's corn production, as well as 60% sunflower oil production.

Russia, a single nation of 140 million people, could fuck with the food supplies/prices of the other nearly 8 billion people in the world.  Putting aside that he could force a rise in prices (which would affect us here as American producers might ship overseas if the price is right, which lowers our supply and raises our prices), he could create food instability in various regions.  Say they create food instability in Central/South America...guess what happens?  A whole shitload of people are going to head for Mexico and the US and swarm our border, causing all kinds of problems.  Wall Street will not look kindly upon businesses working/selling in a Central/South America that is in disarray.  Say he does it in Africa - again, it creates problems for American companies that have interests there, it would generate a rise in piracy in various areas, which means the US Navy will be deployed to those areas.

But wait, there's more.  We have a massive trade/investment relationship with Europe, and Putin/Russia have already said they want to get the band back together against its will, and that when they are finished with Ukraine, they would look elsewhere, including NATO countries.  Now, you can say that he wouldn't be that foolish, but we know he's not all there, which means we will have to ramp up our military deployments to Europe, which will cost the American taxpayer more money, and it will extend our military more than it already is.  And we won't be sending 40 year-old vehicles that we had sitting in long-term storage, that we will be passing off to others, we will be sending high-maintenance modern systems that are expensive to deploy, with a long logistics tail behind them.

And yeah, there's the whole "support a nation that is trying to protect its freedom", but from a purely cynical/financial point of view, it's 100% in our best interest that Russia is defeated in Ukraine.

Putin controlling 20-30% of the world's wheat and corn markets is fucking insane to comprehend.

italics - Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska say screw all that noise.

bold - this is the meat of the issue. We spend billions to build a military to protect us from Russia and this is pretty cheap in lives and dollars to get rid of the Russian problem for a long, long time.

[atomheartbevo 89799]

2 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

distinguishing between how much we have sent in cash payments and new purchases and clearly break out the dollar values for older retired equipment being sent.

And the dollar amount doesn't explain it all - when we send M113s or Bradleys or Humvees that are sitting in long-term storage, way too many people assume those were just waiting to be used by the US military, when in fact they are just sitting there in storage either waiting to be sold to another country, to be used for spare parts, or to be scrapped. A lot of people do not understand that the stuff in storage has already been replaced by the miltiary, or in some cases such as the M113s, has been replaced by two generations of vehicles.  We keep the stuff in long-term storage because we think it still has a little value for either spare parts or for foreign operators that don't need the latest and greatest (beggars can't be choosers), or occasionally we'll use it to backfill losses.

We will never be so desperate that we have to pull M113s or Bradleys (or first-gen Abrams) or older F-16s out of mothballs to defend the US.   We just aren't. It's going to take a few months to get a lot of that stuff out of storage and operational, in the kinds of numbers that would matter.  When we put stuff in storage, we remove batteries, drain all liquids, carefully wrap certain systems (or remove them entirely and store them inside of climate-controlled/secured warehouses), even remove certain parts made out of certain materials that would deteriorate over time, and all of that has to be installed back into the vehicles and then checked.  And that's before we consider the fact that we'd have to man all of those systems, which isn't going to happen unless we start a draft, since the active-duty and Reserve/National Guard components already have vehicles.

What that means is that if we got to the point where stuff we have in long-term storage mattered to us, there's a healthy chance that nukes are already being considered and 45 year-old or 30 year-old vehicles meant for a land war won't matter.

 

[DDD Dad 14351]

9 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

That would be a huge help to be honest.  That’s why i keep tabs on both the righty and lefty responses because it’s damn near the same whine.  Clarity on what is actual money, and what is money spent 30 years ago goes a long fucking way.   

You know there’s a whole thread in the CR where you can discuss this. 

[Trey3216 15356]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

You know there’s a whole thread in the CR where you can discuss this. 

You know there’s absolutely nothing CR about what I said? 

[DDD Dad 14351]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

You know there’s absolutely nothing CR about what I said? 

 

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Clarity on what is actual money, and what is money spent 30 years ago goes a long fucking way

I mean, come on.  It's only the exact thing many R's in Congress are demanding.  And your first post responding defensively to an earlier post (that also was borderline CR) about liberals being isolationist pretty much steered these posts off the rails. 

Look, policy discussions belong elsewhere.  This is the news thread.

Edited March 7, 2023 by DDD Dad

[Schulz2.0 29011]

 

[atomheartbevo 89799]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

italics - Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska say screw all that noise.

I disagree - food prices elsewhere affect us here, both because American companies will export overseas if the price is right, which will drive our domestic prices up, but also, like I said, problems with food supplies/prices in Central/South America could drive a lot of folks towards our border, which then becomes our problem. I'm not going to go all Peter Zeihan, but this is a huge problem with globalization - Putin would be wielding a tremendous amount of power if he gained control of Ukraine.

[Mullet Free 40]

14 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html

 

 

Spoiler

Yes, I honestly believe no one else had anything to gain. 

Ukraine: what the fuck does it gain? It risks alienating necessary allies and giving credence to Russian claims that Ukraine is a terrorist state. 

US: Risks alienating allies and ruining the strong leadership it has provided to this point. Gains? Uh, again, I have no idea.

Poland: their opposition to the pipeline was always about it's potential to enable Russian energy blackmail. I'm pretty sure all of Europe realizes Poland was right about this now. That's why Nordstream 2 never got approval to run in the first place. Again, why blow up a non-operating pipeline when you've already accomplished your goal? Risks: same as above. 

Germany: hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahaha

Russia risks nothing (an asset that isn't going to be used anytime soon if ever). It gains confusion and doubt in the enemy. It gains creating internal conflict among its enemies. It gains a propaganda point it can use to justify further attack on Ukraine. It gains a propaganda point it can use to further convince Russians they are under attack. 

 

And, if that is not enough, everything about this is consistent with Russia's actions over the last 20 years. It immediately blamed Ukraine, and when that didnt get the reaction it wanted, it turned around and blame Anglo-Saxons, as if Russia would have any fucking clue as to the ethnicity of the attackers but not be able to identify the exact responsible country. You're buying into bullshit. Be better. 

 

Responsible parties in order of likelihood:

1) Russia

2) Russia

3) Russia

4) Aliens

5) Latveria

6) Alternate universe Russia

.....

3097) Still not Ukraine or anyone in NATO. 

 

Again, no one but Russia had anything to gain from blowing up an inactive pipeline. And no one in this thread has named one way in which anyone besides Russia benefits. To do so would require (1) ignoring the immediate previous conditions of the pipeline, (2) ignoring European moves away from Russian oil/gas dependence, and (3) ignoring that any benefits were negligible in comparison to risks if discovered. But maybe you're up for the challenge. So, take your shot: Explain how any country besides Russia benefits. Bonus points if you can include a full risk-award analysis without it all sounding fucking stupid. 

 

Russia benefits every which way. And Russia didn't risk anything by doing it, you know, since the pipelines weren't doing anything and would be relatively trivially to repair if shit changed. People need to stop overthinking shit and/or carrying water for Russian bullshit. 

My oh my how the turntables. @bernorange  Too bad this was so certain that the thread was locked. 

Of course this is just a partial story leak. We'll see how it evolves.

[Trey3216 15356]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I mean, come on.  It's only the exact thing many R's in Congress are demanding.  And your first post responding defensively to an earlier post (that also was borderline CR) about liberals being isolationist pretty much steered these posts off the rails. 

Look, policy discussions belong elsewhere.  This is the news thread.

I didn’t steer anything anywhere dude.  I pointed out what I’ve seen and heard.   Read any of HollywoodColt’s posts on this thread and look at some other message board places and you’ll see the same sentiments, from both ends of the spectrum.  I merely made an observation and you want to tag me in a CR fest because the lean in the echo chamber is your fancy.   It’s pretty easy to make a poignant observation like I did and it not have to be political in any fashion.  But being all hypersensitive and wanting to take it political, which is far too often the case these days, I guess I can see why you immediately jumped at that.  Good day, sir.   

[DDD Dad 14351]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

I didn’t steer anything anywhere dude.  I pointed out what I’ve seen and heard.   Read any of HollywoodColt’s posts on this thread and look at some other message board places and you’ll see the same sentiments, from both ends of the spectrum.  I merely made an observation and you want to tag me in a CR fest because the lean in the echo chamber is your fancy.   It’s pretty easy to make a poignant observation like I did and it not have to be political in any fashion.  But being all hypersensitive and wanting to take it political, which is far too often the case these days, I guess I can see why you immediately jumped at that.  Good day, sir.   

JFC.  Nice deflection ("but, but, Hollywoood Colt does it too!")  Just leave your political commentary out of this thread.  Mmmkay?  

It's really not that hard to do.

[blacklab 11951]

Thanks DDD

There's several good posts on this thread that veer into politics for a part so I'm hesitant to delete them.

If your post includes "no cr but", "lefty", "righty", "one party", "Tucker Carlson" please take that part of your post to CR. 

[Macanudo 13012]

9 hours ago, Gravy Train said:

They love our support and our way of life, but are taken aback by our internal political struggles and social issues which bubble up in the press.  He says that Ukrainians share an American ethos in that the people of a nation can put their differences aside to fight for their independence.  He starkly stated that's the difference between Ukraine/U.S. vs Russia- that Ukrainians (or Americans) would fight for their nation, where Russian's cause is to fight for their president.

Pretty sure any American who visits Ukraine right now is treated as royalty, and he wants me to come over and visit as soon as I'm ready.  He flashed me a smile with confidence that I'd be safer in Lviv than The Bronx right now and that he lives a normal way of life, enjoys stable electricity and uses Starlink Internet.

I forgot to mention, he's a couple years younger than me (guessing around 42) and does have a military 'slip,' issued by the government, whereby it's possible he could be called up for duty.  This hasn't happened though, as he doesn't have prior military service and his specialty is in IT, not in any fabrication or military hardware skill.  He said he's had colleagues who were once IoT engineers and are now providing service to the military by modifying civilian drones, so now I know how one of the radio contacts was hijacked to serve as a grenade-drop mechanism.

His travel to Dallas started by way of car to the Polish border checkpoint, where he has to declare what he's taking, what he's returning with, and when he's coming back.  Says their border guards are really picky over that kind of stuff as they're hesitant to let any able-bodied man leave the country.  He then flew from Warsaw to DFW via Atlanta.

In order to return to Ukraine in good-standing with his military slip, he has to bring back an item or donation of high value to the country.  He was last over here in December, when he returned with a Starlink terminal to donate.  This time, he's bringing a $2700 Butterfly mobile ultrasound device to donate for the front lines. 

Maybe next time he comes, let us know in advance and maybe we could crowdsource something?   I mean, not like an Abrams or A-10 but like some nice candlesticks or something.

[bernorange 8363]

Quote

New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year

Well, that could be just about anyone in the world except for Russia.  The arbiters of universal truth might need to check their assumptions.

[wildcat09 29388]

16 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Yes, I honestly believe no one else had anything to gain. 

Ukraine: what the fuck does it gain? It risks alienating necessary allies and giving credence to Russian claims that Ukraine is a terrorist state. 

US: Risks alienating allies and ruining the strong leadership it has provided to this point. Gains? Uh, again, I have no idea.

Poland: their opposition to the pipeline was always about it's potential to enable Russian energy blackmail. I'm pretty sure all of Europe realizes Poland was right about this now. That's why Nordstream 2 never got approval to run in the first place. Again, why blow up a non-operating pipeline when you've already accomplished your goal? Risks: same as above. 

Germany: hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahaha

Russia risks nothing (an asset that isn't going to be used anytime soon if ever). It gains confusion and doubt in the enemy. It gains creating internal conflict among its enemies. It gains a propaganda point it can use to justify further attack on Ukraine. It gains a propaganda point it can use to further convince Russians they are under attack. 

 

And, if that is not enough, everything about this is consistent with Russia's actions over the last 20 years. It immediately blamed Ukraine, and when that didnt get the reaction it wanted, it turned around and blame Anglo-Saxons, as if Russia would have any fucking clue as to the ethnicity of the attackers but not be able to identify the exact responsible country. You're buying into bullshit. Be better. 

 

Responsible parties in order of likelihood:

1) Russia

2) Russia

3) Russia

4) Aliens

5) Latveria

6) Alternate universe Russia

.....

3097) Still not Ukraine or anyone in NATO. 

 

Again, no one but Russia had anything to gain from blowing up an inactive pipeline. And no one in this thread has named one way in which anyone besides Russia benefits. To do so would require (1) ignoring the immediate previous conditions of the pipeline, (2) ignoring European moves away from Russian oil/gas dependence, and (3) ignoring that any benefits were negligible in comparison to risks if discovered. But maybe you're up for the challenge. So, take your shot: Explain how any country besides Russia benefits. Bonus points if you can include a full risk-award analysis without it all sounding fucking stupid. 

 

Russia benefits every which way. And Russia didn't risk anything by doing it, you know, since the pipelines weren't doing anything and would be relatively trivially to repair if shit changed. People need to stop overthinking shit and/or carrying water for Russian bullshit. 

My oh my how the turntables. @bernorange  Too bad this was so certain that the thread was locked. 

Of course this is just a partial story leak. We'll see how it evolves.

You trust US intelligence now?

[MissingInAction 25187]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

For an honest entire second I thought that was real because russia.

[Bevo 13601]

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I disagree - food prices elsewhere affect us here, both because American companies will export overseas if the price is right, which will drive our domestic prices up, but also, like I said, problems with food supplies/prices in Central/South America could drive a lot of folks towards our border, which then becomes our problem. I'm not going to go all Peter Zeihan, but this is a huge problem with globalization - Putin would be wielding a tremendous amount of power if he gained control of Ukraine.

Of course commodities like grain are fungible and prices in one place of the world have an effect on other parts of the world, but... look at the chart. Ukraine produces 1/3rd of what we produce and we have kept production low because of the low return on investment in wheat.

 

[Trey3216 15356]

2 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

For an honest entire second I thought that was real because russia.

Wait til they make one with 2 levels of circular toilets 

[Gravy Train 974]

13 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Maybe next time he comes, let us know in advance and maybe we could crowdsource something?   I mean, not like an Abrams or A-10 but like some nice candlesticks or something.

Thanks, he's unsure how often he can get away but that most of his client-development opportunities are in Texas, and there's a chance he's visiting Austin over this current trip.  Crowdsourcing scarce medical supplies or Starlink terminals seems high on the priority list still.

[Macanudo 13012]

36 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

italics - Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska say screw all that noise.

bold - this is the meat of the issue. We spend billions to build a military to protect us from Russia and this is pretty cheap in lives and dollars to get rid of the Russian problem for a long, long time.

This is what frustrates me.  It is such a great investment and pays off in so many ways.  From weakening a strategic rival to keeping important commodities out of their hands.   We get to draw down arms and armaments that are just sitting around and replace them with ones that are newer and more able.   We create/keep jobs and grow our economy.  I just fucking hate the politics that are being played here.

[Mullet Free 40]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You trust US intelligence now?

No. Not especially.

But we do know that this pretty much excludes Russia as the perpetrator of the sabotage. I'd love to know the reason why this story is being released now. Anonymous intelligence sources, through the NYT.

We also know that this was an incredible example of the groupthink that has taken over this conflict. Simply stating that you question the original official narrative immediately led to being told you're "carrying water for Russian bullshit" amongst other insults. No critical thinking at all, just reactionary. All those quotes I highlighted were from just one of our esteemed, know it all posters before the thread was locked. 

[MissingInAction 25187]

17 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

Thanks, he's unsure how often he can get away but that most of his client-development opportunities are in Texas, and there's a chance he's visiting Austin over this current trip.  Crowdsourcing scarce medical supplies or Starlink terminals seems high on the priority list still.

We could supply him with a few tons of jades chili to lob into Russian trenches.

Might be considered a war crime though.

[Schulz2.0 29011]

7 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

No. Not especially.

But we do know that this pretty much excludes Russia as the perpetrator of the sabotage. I'd love to know the reason why this story is being released now. Anonymous intelligence sources, through the NYT.

We also know that this was an incredible example of the groupthink that has taken over this conflict. Simply stating that you question the original official narrative immediately led to being told you're "carrying water for Russian bullshit" amongst other insults. No critical thinking at all, just reactionary. All those quotes I highlighted were from just one of our esteemed, know it all posters before the thread was locked. 

It says "suspects." Seems like confirmation bias to now say it's a slam dunk that it wasn't Russia.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

 

[Bateshorn 9940]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

And the dollar amount doesn't explain it all - when we send M113s or Bradleys or Humvees that are sitting in long-term storage, way too many people assume those were just waiting to be used by the US military, when in fact they are just sitting there in storage either waiting to be sold to another country, to be used for spare parts, or to be scrapped. A lot of people do not understand that the stuff in storage has already been replaced by the miltiary, or in some cases such as the M113s, has been replaced by two generations of vehicles.  We keep the stuff in long-term storage because we think it still has a little value for either spare parts or for foreign operators that don't need the latest and greatest (beggars can't be choosers), or occasionally we'll use it to backfill losses.

We will never be so desperate that we have to pull M113s or Bradleys (or first-gen Abrams) or older F-16s out of mothballs to defend the US.   We just aren't. It's going to take a few months to get a lot of that stuff out of storage and operational, in the kinds of numbers that would matter.  When we put stuff in storage, we remove batteries, drain all liquids, carefully wrap certain systems (or remove them entirely and store them inside of climate-controlled/secured warehouses), even remove certain parts made out of certain materials that would deteriorate over time, and all of that has to be installed back into the vehicles and then checked.  And that's before we consider the fact that we'd have to man all of those systems, which isn't going to happen unless we start a draft, since the active-duty and Reserve/National Guard components already have vehicles.

What that means is that if we got to the point where stuff we have in long-term storage mattered to us, there's a healthy chance that nukes are already being considered and 45 year-old or 30 year-old vehicles meant for a land war won't matter.

 

From a funding perspective: Scrapping has a cost as well.  Often DOD decides to store rather than scrap because it may be cheaper, or their is an environmental reason: Asbestos or other toxic materials, etc. We may be doing a "store it, and we will deal with it later," knowing we probably won't because the money isn't there. If you've ever gone through Philly and seen all those Navy ships in storage, most have been stricken, but some are inactive.  The Navy is never going to reactivate them, but it costs a fortune to scrap and clean up those ships, so basically the rot until their about to sink, then the Navy will deal with them. 

[Mullet Free 40]

23 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

It says "suspects." Seems like confirmation bias to now say it's a slam dunk that it wasn't Russia.

Why leak any story that it might not be the Russians unless it really wasn't them? No one mainstream was questioning it. Only an evidently discredited old journalist asserted otherwise. Again, I'd love to know why this is coming out now.

[NorthLoop 14248]

17 hours ago, 27-25 said:

Weapon of Mass Destruction of Russians.

 

I think I saw this before in Ernest Goes To Camp

[956 Worldwide 34772]

22 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

Why leak any story that it might not be the Russians unless it really wasn't them? No one mainstream was questioning it. Only an evidently discredited old journalist asserted otherwise. Again, I'd love to know why this is coming out now.

LOL, Kremlin- friendly sources and the Kremlin have issued at least two different versions of what happened. And not to mention, IF the NYT article is absolutely true— then needless to say, Sy Hersh still printed an absolute fabulist tale and remains completely discredited. 

[Schulz2.0 29011]

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

51 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

From a funding perspective: Scrapping has a cost as well.  Often DOD decides to store rather than scrap because it may be cheaper, or their is an environmental reason: Asbestos or other toxic materials, etc. We may be doing a "store it, and we will deal with it later," knowing we probably won't because the money isn't there. If you've ever gone through Philly and seen all those Navy ships in storage, most have been stricken, but some are inactive.  The Navy is never going to reactivate them, but it costs a fortune to scrap and clean up those ships, so basically the rot until their about to sink, then the Navy will deal with them. 

Many of them are just sunk.

[Brisketexan 105337]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It absolutely would affect you and the USA as a whole if Russia was allowed to take Ukraine.

If Russia took Ukraine, Russia would control around 20% of the world's wheat, and 30% of the world's corn production, as well as 60% sunflower oil production.

Russia, a single nation of 140 million people, could fuck with the food supplies/prices of the other nearly 8 billion people in the world.  Putting aside that he could force a rise in prices (which would affect us here as American producers might ship overseas if the price is right, which lowers our supply and raises our prices), he could create food instability in various regions.  Say they create food instability in Central/South America...guess what happens?  A whole shitload of people are going to head for Mexico and the US and swarm our border, causing all kinds of problems.  Wall Street will not look kindly upon businesses working/selling in a Central/South America that is in disarray.  Say he does it in Africa - again, it creates problems for American companies that have interests there, it would generate a rise in piracy in various areas, which means the US Navy will be deployed to those areas.

But wait, there's more.  We have a massive trade/investment relationship with Europe, and Putin/Russia have already said they want to get the band back together against its will, and that when they are finished with Ukraine, they would look elsewhere, including NATO countries.  Now, you can say that he wouldn't be that foolish, but we know he's not all there, which means we will have to ramp up our military deployments to Europe, which will cost the American taxpayer more money, and it will extend our military more than it already is.  And we won't be sending 40 year-old vehicles that we had sitting in long-term storage, that we will be passing off to others, we will be sending high-maintenance modern systems that are expensive to deploy, with a long logistics tail behind them.

And yeah, there's the whole "support a nation that is trying to protect its freedom", but from a purely cynical/financial point of view, it's 100% in our best interest that Russia is defeated in Ukraine.

Putin controlling 20-30% of the world's wheat and corn markets is fucking insane to comprehend.

All of this.

But the average American -- even most above-average Americans -- don't get anything of remotely that complexity.  Geopolitics is a complex system.  Yes, shit that goes sideways in places as seemingly insignificant as Bangladesh or Myanmar can end up causing increased immigration flows from Central America to the US.  And Europe is an incredibly valuable trading partner, and trade means $$$, which is what Americans like to have so they can buy McDonalds and the GI Joe with the kung fu grip come Christmastime.

Global commodity hits strike, well, the globe.  Americans sure as shit understood that some of the increase in gasoline prices they faced was due to the energy crunch caused by the war.  Shifts in supplies and use of natural gas has similar effects.

What happens in Ukraine matters here.  It matters everywhere.

[PTINS 3481]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

This isn't a murky situation that is confusing, this rather straight forward.  This is about right and wrong, good and evil.  This is about people fighting for their freedom, which ought resonate with every American.  This isn't some place where we are attempting to install a democracy where the people don't want it.  The Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom and their right to exist.  This is about a people being invading specifically because they want to join the free world.  

Is there risk to us and US citizens, yes, but its frankly marginal.  The French stuck their neck out for us 250 years ago to support democracy but also to fuck the Brits.  Here we get to pay it forward, and fuck the Russians.  

Queue Garry Kasparov, "What's the worst thing about being so intelligent? I understand things so clearly, and others don't."

I look at my own life experiences, and try to project that against how the "average" American views things.  Right or wrong, I would characterize the collective mindset as "it doesn't really concern me, so ..."

I was an Air Force Brat and spent my early life on remote AFB's.  Back then,  most of what I knew I read someplace, not much broadcast news, and my real world life experiences were limited.  Growing up in Austin in the late 60's was enlightening to say the least, the contrast behind a very structured life on an AFB v. the unbridled energy & passion challenging the establishment, especially with LBJ in the White House and Frank Erwin commanding UT (anti-war protests, tree huggers, and thank god, hippy chicks).  I remember watching the news every day, seeing the Viet Nam casualty reports, and thinking "we're kicking their ass." Years later, when my older brother got his draft number, and his friends got drafted or went to Canada, after attending a vet/friends funeral, shit started getting real. 

I graduated HS in the 70's in Austin, and went to school with some kids that had never been outside of Texas, and a lot whose fathers went to Viet Nam.  I stood along side Presidential Blvd at Bergstrom to watch LBJ's procession, seemed like every general in the US Military came to town. Nixon resigned on my 18th Birthday.  That was a sliver in time where very few people had any desire to join the military and "Serve their Country." By the time I left UT, right after 3 Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution, I was more educated, questioned my past and confused about the future, or confused about my past and questioning my future, with a somewhat jaded view to not take anything at face value (American Interests?).

Traveling, and learning, as an adult, crystalized many things for me.  Are you from Texas? Kinda, 8th Generation, Land Grant family from the Crown of Spain. The Jefferson Memorial; "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Having Au Pairs, travels to Europe, staying with our German Au Pair in a village 30 miles from Belgium; The rural Germans are the hardest working, most resourceful people I've ever been around, (if a cow takes a dump, there is a farmer standing behind it with a shovel), and unfortunately, devoid of any quality leadership for the past 100 years. Paris. If WWII Paris looked like Bakhmut or Mariupol, that would have been the greatest tragedy in the history of Mankind.  Seeing their Statue of Liberty kinda put all that "... never fired, dropped once..." shit to bed. Bingo on the pay it forward!

Translating all that to Ukraine, makes me want to take my 60+ year old ass and my 30.06 and go fuck up some Russians. Ok, lighten up Francis. Better to fire up the BUFF's!

Thank you all, again and again. Your collective knowledge, insight, and experiences, and humor, make my day. 

Slava Ukraini

 

[SquishMitten 10435]

1 hour ago, Mullet Free said:

No. Not especially.

But we do know that this pretty much excludes Russia as the perpetrator of the sabotage. I'd love to know the reason why this story is being released now. Anonymous intelligence sources, through the NYT.

We also know that this was an incredible example of the groupthink that has taken over this conflict. Simply stating that you question the original official narrative immediately led to being told you're "carrying water for Russian bullshit" amongst other insults. No critical thinking at all, just reactionary. All those quotes I highlighted were from just one of our esteemed, know it all posters before the thread was locked. 

Wat? No. We don't. The article itself doesn't even make that claim. First, it's reported to be from anonymous sources in the US intelligence community. That's a pretty substantial pool of potential sources whose credibility cannot be ascertained by the reader. Second, it says the evidence only "suggests" it was a Pro-Ukrainian group. Based solely on this limited report, we absolutely do NOT know that this excludes Russia. Lastly, it also states that officials who have been briefed on the findings are divided on how much weight to put on the info, which naturally means some of them don't believe it to be credible. 

I would also question the writer as they claim 1) Ukraine had a lot of incentive to see the pipeline destroyed, and 2) Russia had no motive to do so. You can quibble about the first point, but there's no debate the second is untrue. 

[Gatorubet 30313]

7 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Wat? No. We don't. The article itself doesn't even make that claim. First, it's reported to be from anonymous sources in the US intelligence community. That's a pretty substantial pool of potential sources whose credibility cannot be ascertained by the reader. Second, it says the evidence only "suggests" it was a Pro-Ukrainian group. Based solely on this limited report, we absolutely do NOT know that this excludes Russia. Lastly, it also states that officials who have been briefed on the findings are divided on how much weight to put on the info, which naturally means some of them don't believe it to be credible. 

I would also question the writer as they claim 1) Ukraine had a lot of incentive to see the pipeline destroyed, and 2) Russia had no motive to do so. You can quibble about the first point, but there's no debate the second is untrue. 

Oh you…..all critical thinking and such

[Brisketexan 105337]

5 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Queue Garry Kasparov, "What's the worst thing about being so intelligent? I understand things so clearly, and others don't."

I look at my own life experiences, and try to project that against how the "average" American views things.  Right or wrong, I would characterize the collective mindset as "it doesn't really concern me, so ..."

 

Love this post.  And when Kasparov made that remark, I had the simultaneous thoughts of 1) "That's how I feel!" and 2) "Boy, how fucking arrogant of you to feel like you're anywhere near as intelligent as Kasparov."  I comforted myself by rationalizing that even if I'm half as intelligent as Kasparov, that still puts me pretty high on the scorecard.  I'm okay with acknowledging that I'm no dummy.  And yeah, the Ukraine picture was one I saw pretty clearly from the beginning.

And when you hear someone like Kasparov speak on the subject, who brings both 1) next-level intelligence and the ability to analyze a complex problem and 2) real-world perspective into the cultures actually involved in the fight, and you find yourself nodding along with every damned thing he says, that is comforting.  I mean, I think I'm smart, but I am also smart enough to check myself -- when I find myself agreeing with certain people, I ask "are they smart fuckers?  Or are they morons?"  It's like the easiest way to figure out if your thinking on something is fucked up -- go over to Texags, and if they are parroting what you're thinking....you probably oughta reconsider shit.

[Captainant 27772]

3 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Jdams are operational, so I do believe that is what we saw the other day.  They add a range of 80km, but I'm betting the crafty Ukrainians will figure a way to extend to them.

 

Some milsim YouTubers I enjoy watching tried out some potential missions that could use the JDAMs

 

Crazy that Ukraine is successfully integrating these new munitions with their cold war era planes

[Dahobbs 17682]

1 hour ago, Mullet Free said:

No. Not especially.

But we do know that this pretty much excludes Russia as the perpetrator of the sabotage. I'd love to know the reason why this story is being released now. Anonymous intelligence sources, through the NYT.

We also know that this was an incredible example of the groupthink that has taken over this conflict. Simply stating that you question the original official narrative immediately led to being told you're "carrying water for Russian bullshit" amongst other insults. No critical thinking at all, just reactionary. All those quotes I highlighted were from just one of our esteemed, know it all posters before the thread was locked. 

Those were my quotes. I stand by them. An anonymous report in the NYT with no description of new information isn't going to convince me otherwise. Especially when the author of the article in question apparently can't fathom how Russia would benefit from destroying an unused pipeline when it immediately 1) blamed the UK, Ukraine, and the west, and 2) offered to increase production from the operating pipelines in exchange for a reduction in sanctions. 

[AUS-97HORN 11823]

1 hour ago, Mullet Free said:

No. Not especially.

But we do know that this pretty much excludes Russia as the perpetrator of the sabotage. I'd love to know the reason why this story is being released now. Anonymous intelligence sources, through the NYT.

We also know that this was an incredible example of the groupthink that has taken over this conflict. Simply stating that you question the original official narrative immediately led to being told you're "carrying water for Russian bullshit" amongst other insults. No critical thinking at all, just reactionary. All those quotes I highlighted were from just one of our esteemed, know it all posters before the thread was locked. 

congrats, pat yourself on the back, throw out your chest and tell us all how an anonymous  intelligence source is now completely believable because it confirms your worldview.

 

fuck, go to Texags if you wanna brag about "being right" they might give a shit, we dont, esp when its not a corroborated source and makes some ridiculous damning assumptions that we know are not reality (specifically that Russia gains nothing by their being blown up by Russia)  

[956 Worldwide 34772]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Those were my quotes. I stand by them. An anonymous report in the NYT with no description of new information isn't going to convince me otherwise. Especially when the author of the article in question apparently can't fathom how Russia would benefit from destroying an unused pipeline when it immediately 1) blamed the UK, Ukraine, and the west, and 2) offered to increase production from the operating pipelines in exchange for a reduction in sanctions. 

I think some of them are mine, too. I’ll admit that this was a big miss by me if this turns out to be correct, but it will be a big miss by a lot of people. None more than the “U.S. did it” crowd.

I have read a German article (not linking because I don’t know it’s credibility) saying that the current theory is a boat rented out of Poland carrying six Ukrainian and Russian nationals on fake passports hosted the dive team that did it.

That’s a lot more low-tech than anyone was imagining. And at odds with the “state actor” statements pushed by some of the investigating states. 
 

If this does turn out to be Ukraine-gov linked it was a serious mistake on their part. 

[SL Xpress 7518]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

Of course commodities like grain are fungible and prices in one place of the world have an effect on other parts of the world, but... look at the chart. Ukraine produces 1/3rd of what we produce and we have kept production low because of the low return on investment in wheat.

 

 

I appreciate a lot of your posts, Bevo. But this one in particular I find helpful because I'm gobbersmacked by it. Just shows how much I personal prejudices influences my internal incorrect assumptions. There's a lot of numbers on there I would have bet a lot of money the other way if someone had asked me about it. Never would have guessed China or India. France I knew on some level, but I would have thought Ukraine was higher. 

Never in a million years would I have guessed either Pakistan or Australia was that high. I've always thought of Australia as this doughnut where the great preponderance of people live relatively close to the coast and the middle of the continent is this mostly uninhabitable hell hole full of every deadly flora and fauna known to man. Probably some we're not aware of thrown in the mix. 

Anyway, thanks for educating me. 

[Dahobbs 17682]

My wild ass guess is that the officials in question were probably staffers for senators on the senate intelligence committee. And the intelligence was probably the completely fabricated and discredited account by Mr. Hersh that for whatever reason the authors of the NYT article couldn't even be bothered to explain how fucking non-sensical and not supported Mr. Hersch's article was.

[Dahobbs 17682]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

I appreciate a lot of your posts, Bevo. But this one in particular I find helpful because I'm gobbersmacked by it. Just shows how much I personal prejudices influences my internal incorrect assumptions. There's a lot of numbers on there I would have bet a lot of money the other way if someone had asked me about it. Never would have guessed China or India. France I knew on some level, but I would have thought Ukraine was higher. 

Never in a million years would I have guessed either Pakistan or Australia was that high. I've always thought of Australia as this doughnut where the great preponderance of people live relatively close to the coast and the middle of the continent is this mostly uninhabitable hell hole full of every deadly flora and fauna known to man. Probably some we're not aware of thrown in the mix. 

Anyway, thanks for educating me. 

Not completely surprising that the two most populous countries are the leaders in the production of one of the easiest and most abundant food sources. I'm pretty sure your description of Australia is still correct. 

[utee94 15863]

9 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

I appreciate a lot of your posts, Bevo. But this one in particular I find helpful because I'm gobbersmacked by it. Just shows how much I personal prejudices influences my internal incorrect assumptions. There's a lot of numbers on there I would have bet a lot of money the other way if someone had asked me about it. Never would have guessed China or India. France I knew on some level, but I would have thought Ukraine was higher. 

Never in a million years would I have guessed either Pakistan or Australia was that high. I've always thought of Australia as this doughnut where the great preponderance of people live relatively close to the coast and the middle of the continent is this mostly uninhabitable hell hole full of every deadly flora and fauna known to man. Probably some we're not aware of thrown in the mix. 

Anyway, thanks for educating me. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Not completely surprising that the two most populous countries are the leaders in the production of one of the easiest and most abundant food sources. I'm pretty sure your description of Australia is still correct. 

Yeah, you probably don't think of China and India as tremendous grain producers, because they're not tremendous grain exporters.  They retain most of their crop for national use.

 

Edit: Here's a chart I found on the internet, on a website called "beef2live" so it's gotta be true.

 

https://beef2live.com/story-top-20-largest-wheat-exporters-world-0-206491#:~:text=Russia is the largest wheat,Canada and the United States.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by utee94

[BamaATL 16593]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Some milsim YouTubers I enjoy watching tried out some potential missions that could use the JDAMs

 

Crazy that Ukraine is successfully integrating these new munitions with their cold war era planes

I read somewhere that changing the mounting bracket on the Mig 29 was pretty easy, and since prior to this, half of NATO operated the Mig we have lots of this stuff.  Someone earlier pointed out that the Ukrainians pilots would have to fly high to extend the range, but I think I know how they can safely do this.  As we all know, it doesn't cost much to use these per drop, so I'm guessing they will first wipe out Russian air defense.  Their air defense is designed to operate near the lines, so this would have two significant benefits: 1.  It would allow for higher altitude drops, 2. it would make Russian air sorties more vulnerable.  So lets say they devote 300 2 ton bombs to wrecking Russian air defense on the lines, bombs aside that would cost them about $3 million.  That's pretty good bang for your buck. 

[SL Xpress 7518]

36 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Queue Garry Kasparov, "What's the worst thing about being so intelligent? I understand things so clearly, and others don't."

I look at my own life experiences, and try to project that against how the "average" American views things.  Right or wrong, I would characterize the collective mindset as "it doesn't really concern me, so ..."

I was an Air Force Brat and spent my early life on remote AFB's.  Back then,  most of what I knew I read someplace, not much broadcast news, and my real world life experiences were limited.  Growing up in Austin in the late 60's was enlightening to say the least, the contrast behind a very structured life on an AFB v. the unbridled energy & passion challenging the establishment, especially with LBJ in the White House and Frank Erwin commanding UT (anti-war protests, tree huggers, and thank god, hippy chicks).  I remember watching the news every day, seeing the Viet Nam casualty reports, and thinking "we're kicking their ass." Years later, when my older brother got his draft number, and his friends got drafted or went to Canada, after attending a vet/friends funeral, shit started getting real. 

I graduated HS in the 70's in Austin, and went to school with some kids that had never been outside of Texas, and a lot whose fathers went to Viet Nam.  I stood along side Presidential Blvd at Bergstrom to watch LBJ's procession, seemed like every general in the US Military came to town. Nixon resigned on my 18th Birthday.  That was a sliver in time where very few people had any desire to join the military and "Serve their Country." By the time I left UT, right after 3 Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution, I was more educated, questioned my past and confused about the future, or confused about my past and questioning my future, with a somewhat jaded view to not take anything at face value (American Interests?).

Traveling, and learning, as an adult, crystalized many things for me.  Are you from Texas? Kinda, 8th Generation, Land Grant family from the Crown of Spain. The Jefferson Memorial; "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Having Au Pairs, travels to Europe, staying with our German Au Pair in a village 30 miles from Belgium; The rural Germans are the hardest working, most resourceful people I've ever been around, (if a cow takes a dump, there is a farmer standing behind it with a shovel), and unfortunately, devoid of any quality leadership for the past 100 years. Paris. If WWII Paris looked like Bakhmut or Mariupol, that would have been the greatest tragedy in the history of Mankind.  Seeing their Statue of Liberty kinda put all that "... never fired, dropped once..." shit to bed. Bingo on the pay it forward!

Translating all that to Ukraine, makes me want to take my 60+ year old ass and my 30.06 and go fuck up some Russians. Ok, lighten up Francis. Better to fire up the BUFF's!

Thank you all, again and again. Your collective knowledge, insight, and experiences, and humor, make my day. 

Slava Ukraini

 

I love this post so much. I love people telling a small portion of their story. What the fuck else are we on this planet for, anyway?

I love all the discussion on here. All the people willing to impart their knowledge, wisdom, and pass on snippets of what's going on when they can.

I also love the policy discussions. I want to know what people think, really more so even than the actual news. How does this effect you? What's your opinion? I get so much of the Russian bot perspective on other sites I have to admit I'm a bit jaundiced, and find this place a welcome respite, but if someone has a legitimate reason for not wanting to support Ukraine, I want to believe there's some part of me that's willing to listen. There's a huge portion of the Global South that feels like the West is a bunch of hypocrites for supporting Ukraine the way they are. Whether I agree with it or not, it's a legitimate point of view. 

I get we have to stay away from the Democrat/Republican talk. We just have to for reasons. No way around it. But regardless of the need to stay away from it, doesn't mean it's not pertinent. There's just no way to have a reasonable discussion, and that's just the way it is. 

Anyway, thanks for the post. I really enjoyed reading it.

Oh, and the Garry Kasparov quote reminds me of this scene in Broadcast News. 

 

[956 Worldwide 34772]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Not completely surprising that the two most populous countries are the leaders in the production of one of the easiest and most abundant food sources. I'm pretty sure your description of Australia is still correct. 

That’s a pretty accurate description of the physical plant but Australia is still huge with lots of great land in the east and southwest. There are only 25 million people there. It’s an agricultural powerhouse for Oceania and Asia.