Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Horn Dog 9,816]

11 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

If MS or Sony could figure out a way to let gamers control an armed drone and chase down a real Russian tank in real time they could charge a shit load and the war would pay for itself.

[The Dog 44,019]

10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think we can divert a bit on Finland as its membership in NATO is a direct result of Russia’s war. It’s really hard to overstate what a L this is for Russia and Putin. Their membership represents the failure of over 70 years of careful Soviet/Russian statecraft. And it represents the firm closing of Russia’s window on the West. Beyond the obvious geography, this political development and the loss of Finland as a responsible Western state that had found accommodation with Russia is a strategic failure. This alone is just about enough to call Russia’s war against Ukraine a failure. 

Baltic Sea is now Lake NATO:

[Parliament 14,249]

In the event of a full-scale war, how hard would it be for NATO to blockade Leningrad?

[The Dog 44,019]

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

In the event of a full-scale war, how hard would it be for NATO to blockade Leningrad St Petersburg?

Blockade? 

You mean how quickly would it be taken and occupied?

Like within hours. 

This is checkmate and Putin knows it.

Edited April 5, 2023 by The Dog

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

From Schulz's tweet about the defector

[Hook1997 5,351]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Well that’s frightening.  Putin doesn’t use the internet or a cell phone, is isolated and just gets information from reports from security services….   He himself has no clue what’s going on outside of Russia expect for what he hears from yes reports from his guys.  

[686 3,447]

Interesting timelapse of a Russian squad getting lit up by artillery.

[SL Xpress 7,513]

4 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Here's the full interview with English subtitles:

 

[SL Xpress 7,513]

93rd Mechanized Brigade found a lot of mines in an area of Bakhmut that also happened to have a lot of Russian/Wagner forces, so they decided to clear the mines. Possibly the force there, too:

 

[SL Xpress 7,513]

Here's 3 tweets showing an artillery attack on a Russian bunker, followed by two tanks firing on the position, followed by Rob Lee interpreting a commander saying at the start of the first video there is an artillery shortage in their area so they're crowdfunding UAVs to compensate:

 

 

[SL Xpress 7,513]

Here's a podcast regularly featuring Micheal Kofman, analyst for the war in Ukraine.

He has a very balanced view, although he doesn't come to a lot of conclusions. Basically says a lot is riding on the upcoming offensive and what Ukraine is able to do afterwards, whether they make any progress, and if they do, are they able to follow up on it. 

He questions if we're at the apex of Western support for Ukraine. He doesn't come to any definitive conclusions. He's simply wondering if that's the case. He compares Bakhmut for the battle for Sievierodonetsk in the sense he wonders if Ukraine spent too many resources in both places. 

The one thing I've always had difficulty regarding Kofman is that he's very much an analyst, which isn't a bad thing. But if it can't be measured he's at a bit of a loss to comment on it. Which is good in its way. Because that can lead to rampant speculation, and while he's certainly capable of speculating, all of it tends to be grounded in what he can measure on some level, whether he has the data or not (for example, Russian troop effectiveness, or the availability of artillery shells on either side). I found it well worth my 28 minutes to listen to in any event.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/russia-will-soon-be-on-the-defense-but-then-what/?fbclid=IwAR1SZHDEEbHN-l_UAmtAu9onr-Yyh1yXWyUha3CR_DYV0yci2izZ4eTfwKM

[KYHorn 17,017]

MANGrads for baiting counter artillery fire and scaring the Russians. Pretty cool

 

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

I think Russia is sensing a big counter-offensive is coming faster than we expected.  More of the batshittery they are trying to sell the Russian people on in regard to the war in Ukraine.  I don't think they sell it this way unless they think something bad is going to happen.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

Fucking insane.  If you are a Russian, we are on day 406 of the 3-day war, and I don't think God is going to ride to the rescue at this point.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

Love that NAFO has been incorporated into the camo scheme.  Make it a NATO standard.

 

[BamaATL 16,593]

19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think Russia is sensing a big counter-offensive is coming faster than we expected.  More of the batshittery they are trying to sell the Russian people on in regard to the war in Ukraine.  I don't think they sell it this way unless they think something bad is going to happen.

I think we are days away.  It is interesting about them now looking to god and all that.  Language is always telling from a dictatorship.  Stalin referred to the Russian people as his children when he was running the purges and in general being the dick part of a dictator.  However, when it looked like the Germans may well over run them, suddenly they are his brothers and sisters.  I'm not sure we will see Putin do this, but the propagandists certainly seem to be preparing them for tough times ahead.  

Nothing terribly surprising from the former bodyguard, the information bubble, etc.  Putin has never been a worldly guy, which is strange considering a KGB operative.  He reportedly doesn't speak any other languages not even a little German, even though he spent a good deal of time in Germany during his career.  For all the belief that somehow Putin managed to have a sense for the pulse of much of the rest of the world, it's just not true, and it's never been true.  All he's ever known how to do is manage other thugs, theft, blackmail, and extortion.  You would think though, that all it takes is a couple of inside guys to poison him, and it's surprising this hasn't happened yet.  

[The Dog 44,019]

longer article:

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by The Dog

[956 Worldwide 34,705]

5 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Here's a podcast regularly featuring Micheal Kofman, analyst for the war in Ukraine.

He has a very balanced view, although he doesn't come to a lot of conclusions. Basically says a lot is riding on the upcoming offensive and what Ukraine is able to do afterwards, whether they make any progress, and if they do, are they able to follow up on it. 

He questions if we're at the apex of Western support for Ukraine. He doesn't come to any definitive conclusions. He's simply wondering if that's the case. He compares Bakhmut for the battle for Sievierodonetsk in the sense he wonders if Ukraine spent too many resources in both places. 

The one thing I've always had difficulty regarding Kofman is that he's very much an analyst, which isn't a bad thing. But if it can't be measured he's at a bit of a loss to comment on it. Which is good in its way. Because that can lead to rampant speculation, and while he's certainly capable of speculating, all of it tends to be grounded in what he can measure on some level, whether he has the data or not (for example, Russian troop effectiveness, or the availability of artillery shells on either side). I found it well worth my 28 minutes to listen to in any event.

https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/russia-will-soon-be-on-the-defense-but-then-what/?fbclid=IwAR1SZHDEEbHN-l_UAmtAu9onr-Yyh1yXWyUha3CR_DYV0yci2izZ4eTfwKM

Kofman is an outstanding voice and thought leader on Russia and its military and doctrine and capabilities. But he’s not an analyst of Western or European foreign policy and he’s smart enough not to get out over his skis and talk about things he doesn’t know. That makes him more valuable, it’s not just a reluctance to talk on things that aren’t measurable, he is not someone who just opens his mouth about everything. 

[956 Worldwide 34,705]

We need to downgrade missions to the charge d’affaires level. Someone to call on the carpet and someone to call if we need a late night phone call to stop the nukes from going off. Putin should not have a presidential envoy to talk to like this. 
 

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

11 hours ago, Parliament said:

In the event of a full-scale war, how hard would it be for NATO to blockade Leningrad?

historically?  very hard.

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[Macanudo 12,976]

51 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

historically?  very hard.

On paper that looks like a hard area to traverse as an invader and historically has not been a tradtional invasion route.   The Finns never made any serious effort during the Winter War to go for the city but they were not interested in it.   

The area north of St. Petersburg is fairly heavily wooded, with a lack of roads and infrastructure and is swampy in some areas with lots of lakes.  Between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, there are only 4 roads that cross the border on a 120 mile front.   The shortest route goes through Vyborg that is creates a pretty severe bottleneck.   It's only about 100 miles from the border to the city but even once you get past Vyborg there are still only 4-5 roads that can get you to St. Petersburg.   You're not driving through the plains of eastern Europe.   It's more like the lake country of Minnesota.  

But.

With the state of the Russian military, if for some reason we were at war, it would tie up a good chunk of whatever the Russians could scrape together to throw at the defense of the area.   It would be a resource suck for both sides but definitely hurting Putin more than us to defend the city.  However, I doubt that the Russians would have any reluctance to launch nukes if NATO troops were operating inside Russian borders.  Strategically, there's really no need to go after St. Petersburg.   It has the same problem on the south side.   There are only 5 majors roads leading out.  One of those goes NE to Murmansk (like 600 miles away.) Two others go W to the Estonian border (about 80 miles away on the shortest route.)  A fourth goes SW toward the Latvian border (about 200 miles).    Only 1 major road really connects the city with anything (the road to Moscow) and that's almost 600 miles away.   

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Macanudo

[686 3,447]

We need to downgrade missions to the charge d’affaires level. Someone to call on the carpet and someone to call if we need a late night phone call to stop the nukes from going off. Putin should not have a presidential envoy to talk to like this. 
 
 

The Russians are reaching the level of BS that is now consistently one-liner unintentional comedy. Like Michael Scott lines. The US is significantly responsible for A crisis in Ukraine. Russia’s crisis. LOL

[Deej 76,756]

18 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Murmansk

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

Poland and South Korea officially created a consortium to start producing K2 tanks in Poland.

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Schulz2.0

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

35 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

On paper that looks like a hard area to traverse as an invader and historically has not been a tradtional invasion route.   The Finns never made any serious effort during the Winter War to go for the city but they were not interested in it.   

The area north of St. Petersburg is fairly heavily wooded, with a lack of roads and infrastructure and is swampy in some areas with lots of lakes.  Between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, there are only 4 roads that cross the border on a 120 mile front.   The shortest route goes through Vyborg that is creates a pretty severe bottleneck.   It's only about 100 miles from the border to the city but even once you get past Vyborg there are still only 4-5 roads that can get you to St. Petersburg.   You're not driving through the plains of eastern Europe.   It's more like the lake country of Minnesota.  

But.

With the state of the Russian military, if for some reason we were at war, it would tie up a good chunk of whatever the Russians could scrape together to throw at the defense of the area.   It would be a resource suck for both sides but definitely hurting Putin more than us to defend the city.  However, I doubt that the Russians would have any reluctance to launch nukes if NATO troops were operating inside Russian borders.  Strategically, there's really no need to go after St. Petersburg.   It has the same problem on the south side.   There are only 5 majors roads leading out.  One of those goes NE to Murmansk (like 600 miles away.) Two others go W to the Estonian border (about 80 miles away on the shortest route.)  A fourth goes SW toward the Latvian border (about 200 miles).    Only 1 major road really connects the city with anything (the road to Moscow) and that's almost 600 miles away.   

 

[bolverk 29,658]

This one kind of got to me. It's not gory, but it shows just the miserable, grimy way Russian soldiers are pointlessly dying while wallowing in the mud and ice in their trenches. While all of this is for one man's ego, the masses are going along with it. What a stupid waste of lives.

 

[BamaATL 16,593]

Interesting

 

[686 3,447]

This one kind of got to me. It's not gory, but it shows just the miserable, grimy way Russian soldiers are pointlessly dying while wallowing in the mud and ice in their trenches. While all of this is for one man's ego, the masses are going along with it. What a stupid waste of lives.
 

Yeah that one is rough. Wet, cold, filthy, no escape.

[Orange&White 5,522]

12 minutes ago, 686 said:

Yeah that one is rough. Wet, cold, filthy, no escape.

Yeah.

Fuck 'em.

[Parliament 14,249]

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

On paper that looks like a hard area to traverse as an invader and historically has not been a tradtional invasion route.   The Finns never made any serious effort during the Winter War to go for the city but they were not interested in it.   

The area north of St. Petersburg is fairly heavily wooded, with a lack of roads and infrastructure and is swampy in some areas with lots of lakes.  Between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, there are only 4 roads that cross the border on a 120 mile front.   The shortest route goes through Vyborg that is creates a pretty severe bottleneck.   It's only about 100 miles from the border to the city but even once you get past Vyborg there are still only 4-5 roads that can get you to St. Petersburg.   You're not driving through the plains of eastern Europe.   It's more like the lake country of Minnesota.  

But.

With the state of the Russian military, if for some reason we were at war, it would tie up a good chunk of whatever the Russians could scrape together to throw at the defense of the area.   It would be a resource suck for both sides but definitely hurting Putin more than us to defend the city.  However, I doubt that the Russians would have any reluctance to launch nukes if NATO troops were operating inside Russian borders.  Strategically, there's really no need to go after St. Petersburg.   It has the same problem on the south side.   There are only 5 majors roads leading out.  One of those goes NE to Murmansk (like 600 miles away.) Two others go W to the Estonian border (about 80 miles away on the shortest route.)  A fourth goes SW toward the Latvian border (about 200 miles).    Only 1 major road really connects the city with anything (the road to Moscow) and that's almost 600 miles away.   

 

I was thinking more of just a naval blockade. Still though.  Thanks.

[bolverk 29,658]

 

 

[locodos 5,387]

Commentary and more footage of the Tank & Trench video I posted up thread.  Ran out of ammo so they just drug their tank nuts all over the Russian's faces

 

[Handcruser 2,805]

I wonder if we’re sending cluster munitions for the offensive. Seems like those would be of immense help. We’re not going to use them ever.

[Brisketexan 105,083]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Huh.  Tell me more about this Sanna Marin lady......

[locodos 5,387]

I thought I read somewhere that Ukraine wanted cluster munitions to harvest for drone drops

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[InkaUtexas 25,875]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Huh.  Tell me more about this Sanna Marin lady......

Well she has some time on her hands now, so this is your chance. GO FOR IT! 

[Gravy Train 974]

21 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

I wonder if we’re sending cluster munitions for the offensive. Seems like those would be of immense help. We’re not going to use them ever.

Seems like the ideal warhead type to counter embedded trenches but that also implies a healthy air fleet to deliver such munitions.

[Handcruser 2,805]

Seems like the ideal warhead type to counter embedded trenches but that also implies a healthy air fleet to deliver such munitions.

I thought we could use atacms delivery systems or some shit.

[956 Worldwide 34,705]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

I was thinking more of just a naval blockade. Still though.  Thanks.

It would not be technically difficult to bottle up the Russians in the Gulf of Finland. The Germans and Finns used mines and anti-sub nets, along with their navies to do it in World War II extremely effectively. 
 

It would be a political and not military question, as it’s hard to see any sort of blockade of a Russian port by NATO NOT leading to a full-scale war and nuclear exchanges. 

[Macanudo 12,976]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

I was thinking more of just a naval blockade. Still though.  Thanks.

Well, there's really no need for that either.   Their Baltic Fleet is based out of Kaliningrad and they have a very sparse naval presence in St. Pete.   I get why the Russians have kept Kaliningrad from a strategic view but it's a bitch to defend long-term.   The Russians would have to make a mad dash across Belarus and the Baltics to resupply and relieve it.   And we know now how effective they are at that.    Obviously, any decent relief column would already be spotted coming through Belarus and since those chuckleheads would probably have declared fealty to Russia, I would assume we'd be hitting the column(s) before they ever left Belarus. 

 

They have a similar problem to the St. Pete one...   The most direct route only has one main road coming from the east unless they did something stupid like trying to come in from the SE through Poland.    I would hope that Lithuania and Poland have a shit ton of soldiers trained up on anti-tank/anti-vehicle weapons.  Plus we know NATO should have air superiority fairly quickly.  

[SydneyCarton 48,067]

21 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

I thought we could use atacms delivery systems or some shit.

If I've learned one thing from this thread, it's that HIMARS and ATACMS delivery systems are the same thing, it's just a different missile and configuration. But we've already put a governor on the HIMARS we have sent them. 

[Rimbo 25,915]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

If I've learned one thing from this thread, it's that HIMARS and ATACMS delivery systems are the same thing, it's just a different missile and configuration. But we've already put a governor on the HIMARS we have sent them. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Rimbo

[Pescado_Rojo 19,416]

30 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

I thought we could use atacms delivery systems or some shit.

The cluster munitions in question are artillery rounds for the M777 howitzers we sent them 

[956 Worldwide 34,705]

12 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Well, there's really no need for that either.   Their Baltic Fleet is based out of Kaliningrad and they have a very sparse naval presence in St. Pete.   I get why the Russians have kept Kaliningrad from a strategic view but it's a bitch to defend long-term.   The Russians would have to make a mad dash across Belarus and the Baltics to resupply and relieve it.   And we know now how effective they are at that.    Obviously, any decent relief column would already be spotted coming through Belarus and since those chuckleheads would probably have declared fealty to Russia, I would assume we'd be hitting the column(s) before they ever left Belarus. 

 

They have a similar problem to the St. Pete one...   The most direct route only has one main road coming from the east unless they did something stupid like trying to come in from the SE through Poland.    I would hope that Lithuania and Poland have a shit ton of soldiers trained up on anti-tank/anti-vehicle weapons.  Plus we know NATO should have air superiority fairly quickly.  

Politically-strategically none of it makes sense for NATO. It’s telling (and a gaping hole in Russia’s paranoid logic) that virtually all U.S. planning and strategic thought has been dedicated for 70 years to fighting Soviets or Russians in Germany, in the North Atlantic, in the Arctic, and managing a nuclear exchange. Virtually none involved besieging Leningrad or thrusting towards Moscow.
 

In purely military-defensive terms, NATO is ideal for Russia.  The main military power on the continent is a (far) offshore power with its own continent spanning empire. It is hard to imagine anything America could be less interested in doing than invading Russia.  And that plays out in history, too, as we replaced the British.  The Brits and Russians bumped up against each other on the edges of their empires and had plenty of squabbles, but no one in Blighty ever thought about invading Russia and no one ever would. The Russians SHOULD be delighted that Europe’s entire security apparatus is subordinate to what Washington decides, as it virtually eliminated the risk of an aggressive war against Russia in Russia.

The only better scenario for them would be to dominate the whole continent and now you’re getting at what Russia is really upset about when they whinge about NATO infrastructure on their borders. 

[Brisketexan 105,083]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The only better scenario for them would be to dominate the whole continent and now you’re getting at what Russia is really upset about when they whinge about NATO infrastructure on their borders. 

Bingo.

The short version of why Russia hates NATO: Russia does not hate NATO for what NATO might do.  Russia hates NATO because of what NATO won't let RUSSIA do.