Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Macanudo 12,975]

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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. 

 A few weeks ago I watched a video that some Youtube dork had put together that war gamed a NATO-Russia war.   He placed a huge amount of emphasis on NATO's need to neutralize Kaliningrad which really makes no sense to me.   If war were to break out, we could correctly assume that Russian subs would already be at sea.   Their surface fleet is absolutely no threat and would be dealt with pretty quickly.   

But I just keep going back to what we know about Russia's military might.    If/when they come up against anyone with competent leadership they are screwed.   They can attrit a country like Ukraine by numbers but against China or India where that's not the case?    Or against superior firepower and technology like NATO?  

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

21 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

[AUS-97HORN 11,757]

The Ukrainian operators keep getting so lucky that their crimes arent caught on camera,  but just amazingly unlucky that they keep getting caught within 30 mins of completing their dastardly deeds

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

1 hour 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. 

So, you're saying we handicapped them?

[SydneyCarton 48,066]

5 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

So, you're saying we handicapped them?

Yes. But not with a tree. 

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

1 hour ago, AUS-97HORN said:

The Ukrainian operators keep getting so lucky that their crimes arent caught on camera,  but just amazingly unlucky that they keep getting caught within 30 mins of completing their dastardly deeds

Incredibly skillful at thoroughly planning on disabling multiple cameras along a route (probably chew some bubble gum and blow it through a blowgun at the cameras, blocking the lens), but somehow never got around to planning their escapes.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

 A few weeks ago I watched a video that some Youtube dork had put together that war gamed a NATO-Russia war.   He placed a huge amount of emphasis on NATO's need to neutralize Kaliningrad which really makes no sense to me.   If war were to break out, we could correctly assume that Russian subs would already be at sea.   Their surface fleet is absolutely no threat and would be dealt with pretty quickly.   

But I just keep going back to what we know about Russia's military might.    If/when they come up against anyone with competent leadership they are screwed.   They can attrit a country like Ukraine by numbers but against China or India where that's not the case?    Or against superior firepower and technology like NATO?  

If it's the one I saw (and there are several, so maybe it wasn't), it was acting like it was the Russia of January 2022.  The problem (or rather the ease) with wargaming the initial stages of a NATO-Russia war here in 2023 is two-fold:

1. Russia  correctly assumes that the only way we go to war with them, is if Russia starts it by either hitting a NATO country or using nukes.  This is why they feel free to talk so much shit on the nightly news about nuking NATO countries.  Because they know we won't unilaterally start a war with them, that allows them to pull their best trained/equipped troops from their borders, and from Kalingrad, and send them to the war in Ukraine while at the same time reducing the numbers of soldiers left in those areas.
2. Russia also correctly assumes that we know that if we send troops/aircraft into Russia proper, they can/will use nukes, which means we won't be invading Russia proper, which means they don't need many troops to keep Russia secure, which frees up Russian forces for Ukraine.

They've made a lot of miscalculations, but when you look at all of the units they've sent to Ukraine, and units that they've stripped personnel from, it's clear that they are not worried about a war with NATO invading Russia's borders.

[Brisketexan 105,082]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They've made a lot of miscalculations, but when you look at all of the units they've sent to Ukraine, and units that they've stripped personnel from, it's clear that they are not worried about a war with NATO invading Russia's borders.

And, as a corollary to that point.....they've also made it clear that they really aren't a threat to invade a NATO nation's borders.

First, as of TODAY....invade with....what, exactly?  That was my wife's response when I informed her that one of our upcoming trips would put us within 90 miles of the Russian border, so if she hears the rumble of tanks, tell me so we can hop in the car and haul ass west.  She laughed, and said "what tanks?"  It's a fair fucking question.  Let's say that Russia wanted to invade Estonia tomorrow.  With fucking what?  First, they don't have any significant equipment staged nearby to pull it off.  Second, the main reason for that is that everything they've got is otherwise engaged in Ukraine.

Second, as of TOMORROW, in a world after the Ukraine war is over....the question remains.  Invade with what?  Their ground equipment is depleted like hell.  And to have ANY chance of penetrating at all, they'd have to mass significant quantities of equipment near the border.  They can't pull that off without us seeing.  And they sure as fuck couldn't do so without a NATO response.  Do you want to see bulked up NATO air wings operating out of nearby countries?  That's how you get to see bulked up NATO air wings operating out of nearby countries, just as a start.

Russia, quite simply, can't pull off an invasion of a NATO country now, and likely won't be a measurable threat to do so for 10-20 years.

All that shit we were planning for back in the heart of the Cold War?  Russia can't do a damned bit of it now, save and except pop off some nukes.  They are a shithole country with a shitty military that also happens to have a sizable nuclear arsenal.  Take the nukes away, and Moscow would be under NATO occupation within a week.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Brisketexan

[GoPokes83 2,240]

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.
 

Can they not hear the drones?

[GoPokes83 2,240]

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.

Never say never. We have all kinds of nefarious things we’d bring out if our backs were to the wall.

[bolverk 29,656]

24 minutes ago, GoPokes83 said:

Can they not hear the drones?

They're certainly aware they're above them as you can see them shooting up into the sky. So, yeah, they probably can hear them if not see them.

[BamaATL 16,593]

36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If it's the one I saw (and there are several, so maybe it wasn't), it was acting like it was the Russia of January 2022.  The problem (or rather the ease) with wargaming the initial stages of a NATO-Russia war here in 2023 is two-fold:

1. Russia  correctly assumes that the only way we go to war with them, is if Russia starts it by either hitting a NATO country or using nukes.  This is why they feel free to talk so much shit on the nightly news about nuking NATO countries.  Because they know we won't unilaterally start a war with them, that allows them to pull their best trained/equipped troops from their borders, and from Kalingrad, and send them to the war in Ukraine while at the same time reducing the numbers of soldiers left in those areas.
2. Russia also correctly assumes that we know that if we send troops/aircraft into Russia proper, they can/will use nukes, which means we won't be invading Russia proper, which means they don't need many troops to keep Russia secure, which frees up Russian forces for Ukraine.

They've made a lot of miscalculations, but when you look at all of the units they've sent to Ukraine, and units that they've stripped personnel from, it's clear that they are not worried about a war with NATO invading Russia's borders.

Is it the info graphics stuff?  They pump out non stop bullshit.  Most of them are laughable, they earlier posted one where the F35 was getting shot down by s-300's.  

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by KYHorn

[CHIEF 5,078]

I remember several hundred pages back, when Russia was doing some nuclear saber rattling, it was mentioned that OSINT wasn't too concerned as they had not seen Russia pulling nuclear warheads from their storage facility. Do the Russians actually keep their nuclear warheads in centralized facilities and dole them out when put on high alert? NATO OSINT knows where these facilities are? Would it be possible to eliminate the threat of these facilities using non-NATO sabotage groups, like from Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and some of the Stans. That would leave the Russians with just a maritime threat with their subs.

CHIEF

[Brisketexan 105,082]

7 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

That would leave the Russians with just a maritime threat with their subs.

Ummm.....as someone who has a very strong allergic reaction to getting his ass nuked.....I'm gonna say that "Russia still has all their sub-launched nukes at hand" is quite enough of a threat for me.

Nuclear saber rattling works to some degree, because it's a nasty fucking saber.  

All that said....Russia isn't gonna nuke anyone.  So long as NATO forces don't wander into Russia, they aren't going to nuke shit.

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

 

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[Rimbo 25,915]

I've never seen such a high level of finding out... but then there's never been so much fuck around to go with it

[Bevo 13,570]

2 hours ago, KYHorn said:

 

 

I'm going with Friday. Maybe, they are thinking after Easter, though.

[Gatorubet 30,189]

2 hours ago, KYHorn said:

 

 

“U.S. military meteorologist David Helms believes….”

[Gravy Train 974]

54 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

...so like 22 routers and a couple Nexus switches?  😆
 

Good job, Russia, now you all get to deploy Huawei or some bootleg Sonicwall or whatever remains on the black market with unknown firmwares.

[BamaATL 16,593]

50 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

...so like 22 routers and a couple Nexus switches?  😆
 

Good job, Russia, now you all get to deploy Huawei or some bootleg Sonicwall or whatever remains on the black market with unknown firmwares.

Shit I figured they got ripped off and had to rent equipment from their internet provider like the rest of us.  

[Parliament 14,249]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

I'm going with Friday. Maybe, they are thinking after Easter, though.

Surly virologists became supply chain experts and then geopolitical strategists.  Now we're all meteorologists. 

[InkaUtexas 25,875]

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Surly virologists became supply chain experts and then geopolitical strategists.  Now we're all meteorologists. 

And offensive coordinators. 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

 

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

Melitopol reportedly hit last night.

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

 The role of crowdfunding in this war is pretty remarkable:

 

 

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by KYHorn

[KYHorn 17,017]

 

 

[Macanudo 12,975]

10 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

And offensive coordinators. 

But some of us have years, if not decades, of experience at that.

[mrlasky 28]

Weather (soggy)

[MissingInAction 25,020]

11 hours ago, Parliament said:

Surly virologists became supply chain experts and then geopolitical strategists.  Now we're all meteorologists. 

You forgot football coaches.

[MissingInAction 25,020]

11 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

And offensive coordinators. 

Damn it.. beat me to it.

I am not our standard.

[BamaATL 16,593]

14 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Damn it.. beat me to it.

I am not our standard.

Something, something, bubble screen?

[Pato del Muerto 52,487]

So is that avenger system street legal?  And is the US giving them away?

[MissingInAction 25,020]

8 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Something, something, bubble screen?

As far as I can tell the Russians are throwing 3 yard outs 5 yards behind the LOS.

[Brisketexan 105,082]

40 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

As far as I can tell the Russians are throwing 3 yard outs 5 yards behind the LOS.

And repeatedly running Hodges Mitchell up the gut with a shitty OL against a hellacious DL, for an average gain of .0001 yards.

Jesus, the similarities are awfully striking.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

46 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So is that avenger system street legal?  And is the US giving them away?

Jokes aside, it's another system that we are giving them that we are in the process of replacing - there's a newer system planned, based on the Stryker chassis.  

And yes, the Avenger was another 1980s system designed to fight the Soviets.

[CHIEF 5,078]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Jokes aside, it's another system that we are giving them that we are in the process of replacing - there's a newer system planned, based on the Stryker chassis.  

And yes, the Avenger was another 1980s system designed to fight the Soviets.

So it's like putting up our Van Halens against their Buddy Hollies? To use an analogy.

CHIEF

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[The Dog 44,019]

 

[Brisketexan 105,082]

7 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

So it's like putting up our Van Halens against their Buddy Hollies? To use an analogy.

CHIEF

David Lee Roth Van Halen, or Sammy Hagar Van Halen?  This is important, please provide clarity.

[CHIEF 5,078]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

David Lee Roth Van Halen, or Sammy Hagar Van Halen?  This is important, please provide clarity.

DLR for sure. Earliest Van Halen is best Van Halen.

CHIEF

[Brisketexan 105,082]

1 minute ago, CHIEF said:

DLR for sure. Earliest Van Halen is best Van Halen.

CHIEF

And also the wildest and most likely to improvise.  Your comparison is apt, and I approve.

[BamaATL 16,593]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

David Lee Roth Van Halen, or Sammy Hagar Van Halen?  This is important, please provide clarity.

Gary Cherone