Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Post Oak 20213]

Yes

[statsman 5470]

Two years ago, Ukrainian soldiers who retook Motyzhyn found the bodies of its mayor and her family in a shallow grave. These days the front line is hundreds of miles away, but the village is adapting for a long war.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-village-scarred-by-murder-of-mayor-and-her-family-prepares-for-long-war-a3ebd750?st=lea0ywzj98c3cjr&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

[gmr548 16580]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Never thought I'd want to join Estonian Secret Service but here we are.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-veteran-in-ukraine-says-ammo-desperately-needed-not-tanks-2024-3?amp

[bolverk 29675]

46 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-veteran-in-ukraine-says-ammo-desperately-needed-not-tanks-2024-3?amp

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Edited April 1 by bolverk

[Gatorubet 30239]

7 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Never thought I'd want to join Estonian Secret Service but here we are.

So, you have abandoned your dreams of being an Estonian gynecologist?

[TexasEd 8067]

On 3/31/2024 at 12:59 PM, RPM said:

40 yo French armored ought to be up to Russian specs.

40 years ago was 1984

M1 Abrams went into service in 1980.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

40 years ago was 1984

M1 Abrams went into service in 1980.

Our stuff is maintained and updated. 40 year old Russian armor still has the same engine oil it left the factory with. At least the little bit that hasn’t leaked out. 

[TexasEd 8067]

1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Our stuff is maintained and updated. 40 year old Russian armor still has the same engine oil it left the factory with. At least the little bit that hasn’t leaked out. 

I was comparing it to the French gear being donated. The Russians are puting stuff from the 1950s back into service 

Edited April 2 by TexasEd

[InkaUtexas 25944]

Careful, bet they still have some Shermans.

[Parliament 14260]

3 hours ago, TexasEd said:

40 years ago was 1984

 

My God am I old.

[atomheartbevo 89671]

45 minutes ago, Parliament said:

My God am I old.

[atomheartbevo 89671]

Interesting interviews with Swedish soldiers/conscripts about Russia, NATO, etc. and how Swedish society flipped from being pro-neutral to pro-NATO, and a look at Gotland Island.

 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

Another refinery hit. This time in Tartarstan.

Shahed drone factory hit.

[B00M 6416]

Tartarstan looks like a far flung region of Russia and then you zoom out and it’s really not. It’s just mind blowing how much land they have, how undeveloped they are, and it just makes their modern land grab even more insane. 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

 

[Parliament 14260]

36 minutes ago, B00M said:

Tartarstan looks like a far flung region of Russia and then you zoom out and it’s really not. It’s just mind blowing how much land they have, how undeveloped they are, and it just makes their modern land grab even more insane. 

Much easier to steal improved land than it is to develop your own.

[B00M 6416]

24 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Much easier to steal improved land than it is to develop your own.

Is it though? The land they’re taking at this point is worse than undeveloped. All infrastructure is destroyed and left in ruin. There’s unexploded ordnance, mines and chemicals in all the fields and forests… the next (or first?) great leader of Russia will be the person that focuses on internal development: educating the population, raising standard of living (you know, luxuries like flushing toilets outside of Moscow and St Pete), and increasing GDP. Make it a first world nation. How does someone as intelligent as Putin look at his country and decide what will make people remember him is increasing the land area by a couple percent? The 500k men that have been killed or disabled in this war could have been improving infrastructure in that shit hole of a country. 

[Chad Fuck 17682]

Is it though? The land they’re taking at this point is worse than undeveloped. All infrastructure is destroyed and left in ruin. There’s unexploded ordnance, mines and chemicals in all the fields and forests… the next (or first?) great leader of Russia will be the person that focuses on internal development: educating the population, raising standard of living (you know, luxuries like flushing toilets outside of Moscow and St Pete), and increasing GDP. Make it a first world nation. How does someone as intelligent as Putin look at his country and decide what will make people remember him is increasing the land area by a couple percent? The 500k men that have been killed or disabled in this war could have been improving infrastructure in that shit hole of a country. 

What does a street gangster aspire to? What is greatness to such a man? Displays of raw power.

The kind of man you describe cannot rise in modern Russia. That’s why all their smart people left.

[Parliament 14260]

2 hours ago, B00M said:

Is it though? The land they’re taking at this point is worse than undeveloped. All infrastructure is destroyed and left in ruin. There’s unexploded ordnance, mines and chemicals in all the fields and forests… the next (or first?) great leader of Russia will be the person that focuses on internal development: educating the population, raising standard of living (you know, luxuries like flushing toilets outside of Moscow and St Pete), and increasing GDP. Make it a first world nation. How does someone as intelligent as Putin look at his country and decide what will make people remember him is increasing the land area by a couple percent? The 500k men that have been killed or disabled in this war could have been improving infrastructure in that shit hole of a country. 

If you’re talking farm ground yes.  Nothing to cut down, plow under or drain.

Re: unexploded ordinance, they do they really care about getting some Russian “colonists” kilt?

[TexasEd 8067]

Going back 3 years I remember the motivations as:

• Population decline made it now or never
• Need to move back as close as possible to the Fulda Gap lines 
• Ukraine's undeveloped Oil and Gas reserves on land an in the Black Sea.
• Warm water ports in the Black Sea

Only the population objective has taken a hit due to the war.  If Russia is successful the other three are still wins.

[Chad Fuck 17682]

Going back 3 years I remember the motivations as:

• Population decline made it now or never
• Need to move back as close as possible to the Fulda Gap lines 
• Ukraine's undeveloped Oil and Gas reserves on land an in the Black Sea.
• Warm water ports in the Black Sea

Only the population objective has taken a hit due to the war.  If Russia is successful the other three are still wins.

They aren’t any closer to securing the Black Sea goals you reference.

[atomheartbevo 89671]

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

They aren’t any closer to securing the Black Sea goals you reference.

They were clearly not just looking for ports (they had that with Crimea) but controlling all of it, but that's out the window - in fact, things are worse now because they've forced Ukraine to develop the means to destroy any surface vessels and cripple any port, which Ukraine didn't have prior to 2022..

[atomheartbevo 89671]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Going back 3 years I remember the motivations as:

• Population decline made it now or never
• Need to move back as close as possible to the Fulda Gap lines 
• Ukraine's undeveloped Oil and Gas reserves on land an in the Black Sea.
• Warm water ports in the Black Sea

Only the population objective has taken a hit due to the war.  If Russia is successful the other three are still wins.

Population, they. just need to get to fucking.  Ukraine is little better, but Ukraine is trying to keep a lot of their younger (18-27) off of the front lines to actually encourage them to have families.

They had safe warm water ports with Crimea, but that's gone.

The oil and gas reserves thing is huge though - Ukraine was just bringing those online, and had Russia taken full control of the coastline (through Odessa) that was a massive amount of control of European-based oil and gas.  Had Ukraine brought more of those line, they would have threatened Russia's European market (and hurt Putin's oligarchs).

[SquishMitten 10408]

6 hours ago, B00M said:

Is it though? The land they’re taking at this point is worse than undeveloped. All infrastructure is destroyed and left in ruin. There’s unexploded ordnance, mines and chemicals in all the fields and forests… the next (or first?) great leader of Russia will be the person that focuses on internal development: educating the population, raising standard of living (you know, luxuries like flushing toilets outside of Moscow and St Pete), and increasing GDP. Make it a first world nation. How does someone as intelligent as Putin look at his country and decide what will make people remember him is increasing the land area by a couple percent? The 500k men that have been killed or disabled in this war could have been improving infrastructure in that shit hole of a country. 

There’s a substantial portion of Ukraine that has not be leveled. Not that their loss is any less significant re: human suffering, but the towns that have been destroyed aren’t the economic objectives of taking the country as a whole. And unexploded ordinance etc? They can just skip past those territories if they took everything to the west 

ETA: I’m really only talking about initial goals. At this point the calculus is different because it appears exceptionally unlikely they could take those areas to the west without resorting to the same destructive measures 

Edited April 2 by SquishMitten

[B00M 6416]

7 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

There’s a substantial portion of Ukraine that has not be leveled… They can just skip past those territories if they took everything to the west 

Of course. But the only way Russia is actually taking territory from Ukraine today is by absolutely leveling it with artillery, glide bombs, and cluster munitions. Do you think there will come a time when Ukrainians decide they’d rather be slaves to Russia than die fighting for liberty? I get these sort of vibes:


 

[TexasEd 8067]

34 minutes ago, B00M said:

Of course. But the only way Russia is actually taking territory from Ukraine today is by absolutely leveling it with artillery, glide bombs, and cluster munitions. Do you think there will come a time when Ukrainians decide they’d rather be slaves to Russia than die fighting for liberty? I get these sort of vibes:


 

Is that the scene from Men In Black where the bug sucks out his guts and then wears his skin as a disguise?  Because yeah.

Edited April 2 by TexasEd

[MillerEP 30455]

Just watched a video of a Russian slitting his own throat after getting hit by a drone. Usually I'm numb to most things, especially dead Russians, but it actually shook me a bit, so stay safe out there!

[Schulz2.0 28951]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/04/02/steel-hornets-ukraines-amazon-for-drone-bombs/?sh=21eec613518d

[Parliament 14260]

I’m really glad Ukraine is on our side.  And for whatever reason, I’m proud the American 40 mike mike has found another purpose.

[atomheartbevo 89671]

These are most likely for our use or for Poland,  but we may be passing some through here on the way to Ukraine.

Red River Wrmy Depot is featured.  North Texas.

Edited April 3 by atomheartbevo

[Post Oak 20213]

 

 

[gmr548 16580]

18 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Going back 3 years I remember the motivations as:

• Population decline made it now or never
• Need to move back as close as possible to the Fulda Gap lines 
• Ukraine's undeveloped Oil and Gas reserves on land an in the Black Sea.
• Warm water ports in the Black Sea

Only the population objective has taken a hit due to the war.  If Russia is successful the other three are still wins.

Putin was in the KGB for 15 years and has openly mourned the collapse of the USSR. Any strategic goals seem to pale in comparison to the nostalgic? - I don't know if that's the right word - desire to reestablish the Soviet empire/sphere of influence, regardless of whether or not it's strategically sensible or viable.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

 

[nineliveslost 2760]

 

[atomheartbevo 89671]

The Crimean bridge is scheduled to be destroyed in the first half of 2024. Its destruction is inevitable - The Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine official in an interview with The Guardian He added that the head of the department, Budanov, already has "most of the resources to complete this task."
 

[Orange&White 5528]

I assume that is to try and get all of the russians in crimea to move out faster, rather than just openly divulging war strategy.

[NorthLoop 14205]

34 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I assume that is to try and get all of the russians in crimea to move out faster, rather than just openly divulging war strategy.

Or just pulling out his giant balls and slapping them on the table. 

[Parliament 14260]

So what’s the predominant traffic direction?  Russian colonists bugging out or Russian military assets moving in?

[PTINS 3471]

 

INTERVIEW

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE

CHIEF OF MISSION RESIDENCE

PARIS, FRANCE

APRIL 2, 2024

Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Darius Rochebin of LCI/TF1

QUESTION:  Good evening, Mr. Secretary of State.  Antony Blinken, you’re head of U.S. foreign policy.  First, Ukraine’s cry for help.  Is the United States in a position to promise that the Ukrainian state, that Kyiv, will never fall into Russian hands?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I am convinced we already have.  In other words, it is not happening, it’s never going to happen.  At the beginning of the Russian aggression in 2022, we thought there was a possibility that Kyiv would fall.  But thanks to the incredible resistance of the Ukrainian people, and thanks also to the support given to Ukraine by the United States, France and other countries, Putin’s desire to conquer the whole country, to wipe it off the map, to make it part of a greater Russia, has not materialized and it won’t.

QUESTION:  Mr. Zelenskyy said: “We’re not 100% sure that Putin won’t use nuclear weapons.”  And he added, “That’s what makes President Biden cautious.”  Do you, indeed, have to take that risk into account?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: From the start, from day one, President Biden was convinced of two things: that we had to do everything possible to support Ukraine, because the aggression against Ukraine was not just an aggression against the Ukrainian people and against the country, but against all the basic principles of the international system.  But he was also convinced that we had to avoid a war with Russia.

QUESTION:  A nuclear escalation?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  An escalation, whether conventional or nuclear.  And so, since then, he’s been leading with great clarity in this direction: supporting Ukraine but avoiding a war with Russia.

QUESTION: It’s not just theoretical.  Don’t we remember the warning that went out about a possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?  If that were to happen, would the United States respond?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Look, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.  There was indeed a moment when there was fear. I think that —

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) there were concrete messages to that effect.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  All I can say is that there was a fear that it was possible.  But I think the Russians heard not only from the United States, not only from France, but from many other countries, including China, that a nuclear weapon should absolutely not be used.

QUESTION:  But in principle, Mr. Secretary of State, compared to the use of conventional weapons, would the slightest nuclear use, even tactical weapons, be a complete change?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  For us, it would be a complete change, yes.

QUESTION:  With consequences for Russia?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  With consequences.  But we’re doing everything, of course, to avoid this possibility and to avoid a war, a bigger war.  But at the same time, we absolutely must support Ukraine, because the Russian aggression continues to this day, it continues to do appalling damage within Ukraine, and it continues to present a danger not only to Ukraine, but to Europe as well.

QUESTION:  The Balts are expressing their fear of a more conventional war.  It would be a Russian incursion into the Baltic territories and, as in Crimea in 2014, a fait accompli.  Would the United States militarily prevent it this time?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  You know, we have an exceptional asset, which is NATO.  And the basic idea of NATO is that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on everyone.

QUESTION:  Article 5.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Article 5.  And I don’t think it’s in Mr. Putin’s interest to widen the conflict, especially with or against a NATO member.

QUESTION:  Mr. Blinken, do you understand that this is the crucial question – for the Balts, in particular? Can they be assured that even one foot of a Russian soldier on Baltic territory would lead to a military response from the United States of America?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: A millimeter or a centimeter.  For us, Article 5 is essential.

QUESTION: With a military reaction?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Again, I won’t go into specific hypotheses, but I think that any adversary who is aggressive against a NATO member knows that he will get a response from NATO, including the United States.

QUESTION:  That’s you.  If it’s Mr. Trump, does that change?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  You know, all I can do is manage today and do the best I can with all my colleagues.  The future —

QUESTION:  But do you understand, excuse me, Mr. Secretary of State, the fear of Europeans who wonder, ‟If Mr. Trump is there, there may be a disengagement from NATO?”

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I hear fears coming from my colleagues, from my fellow citizens, but, you know, there are often fears when there are changes in democracies, whether it’s the United States, whether it’s France, whether it’s any democratic country where there’s a change of government every four years, every six years or whatever, there’s always something, because of course you get used to what you’ve got.  You don’t know what’s coming next, but what I can tell you is that this year will mark 75 years of NATO, 75 years of American administrations, Republicans and Democrats, supporting NATO.  I’m convinced that it will continue, no matter what.

QUESTION:  You have helped Ukraine powerfully.  You rule out – that’s clear – American troops in Ukraine, don’t you?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Yes.

QUESTION:  However, what happens if the French – Mr. Macron has said, “it’s not out of the question” – the Finns, the Poles go for it.  It’s their choice.  Will it require a NATO consensus?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Again, I stay away from making hypotheses for the future.  Our policy is clear.  President Biden’s policy is clear.  There will be no American troops on Ukrainian soil.

QUESTION:  Why not?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Because for us, it’s something that will lead closer to a direct conflict with Russia, which we want to avoid.  It’s not in our interest and it’s not in the interest of the Allies. But at the same time —

QUESTION:  Excuse me.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  Would it be like a stab in the pact since, let’s say, the Cold War when there’s been no direct confrontation between the two nuclear powers, for ground troops to take place?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  For us, it’s a matter of national interest.  It’s not in our interest to have a direct conflict with Russia.  I don’t think it’s in the interest of any of the NATO members.  But at the same time, there is a determination, a conviction that we must do our utmost to support Ukraine, and do so not only this year, but in the years to come.

Because the real danger – there is an immediate danger on the ground – but the greatest danger is the idea that may be in Putin’s head, that he can outlast us, that we’ll end up fading away, whether it’s us, Europe or the other partners.  I think it’s essential to convince Putin that this won’t be the case.

QUESTION:  But, Antony Blinken, once again, if the French also go, the Finns, the Poles, etc., is it at our peril or do you think it will involve NATO?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Everyone must make decisions on a national level and on an Alliance level too.

QUESTION:  Will the Alliance have to come to an agreement?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Again, I won’t go into hypotheticals, but I know very well that, with the relations we have within the Alliance, the relations we have directly with France, everything we do, we do together.  We talk about it, we discuss it, and we decide together.

QUESTION:  In Brazil, President Macron raised the possibility of Vladimir Putin taking part in the next G20 meeting, provided, he said, that it would be useful and that there was a consensus among all G20 members.  Do you see this as a possibility, under these conditions?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  If there’s a consensus among all the members and if it’s useful, yes.  In the current situation, it’s hard to see how it could be useful and how there could be a consensus among all the members —

QUESTION:  For you, would a Putin-Biden handshake be conceivable, provided, of course, that it was useful?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  The idea has never been to exclude Russia or Mr. Putin.  It’s the actions, it’s the policy of Russia and of Mr. Putin that triggers what happens in terms of Russia’s relations with the G20 or with the G7, with the world.  So, if policy changes, we don’t rule anything out.  The problem is that we don’t have any proof, for the moment, that policy is changing.

QUESTION:  But if the policy changes, can we talk to Mr. Putin again very directly, even at a summit?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I hope there will be a day, and I hope that day will come sooner rather than later, when relations between our countries and Russia will be quite different from the current one.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and it’s not the case because of Mr. Putin’s policies.

QUESTION:  So, to be perfectly clear, he’s not a pariah forever?  Not necessarily?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Russia is not a pariah, and for us, it’s not so much the individuals, the personalities, that count, it’s the policy pursued by a country.

[statsman 5470]

France’s Macron once advocated dialogue with Russia but now wants to keep all military options open in Ukraine, unsettling NATO allies.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/macron-france-russia-putin-b89d1177?st=x8c5u6gx36w4qe9&reflink=share_mobilewebshare

[Brisketexan 105142]

So, the boy is back in Berlin for a week (it's their "spring break" over there, so he went over to visit old friends and act stupid in Berlin).  The East Side Gallery is one of the longest segments of the Berlin Wall still standing.  It's been turned into an art installation.  Most of it is permanent/semi-permanent, but there are portions that are available for anyone to show up and paint anytime.  So, this afternoon, the boy and a friend went down there and put this up:
 


 
"Your neighbor fights for your defense"

Being overseas, and making the friends he has (heavy on German, UK, Ukrainian, and various other NATO countries), as well as the experience of being there when the war started and seeing and responding to the refugees firsthand, has put him in a rather cemented position.  He is better than I am/would be about giving individual Russians he meets a chance, but he also loves trolling vatniks on any online games he plays (he gets put onto European servers, so he sees them regularly).

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, the boy is back in Berlin for a week (it's their "spring break" over there, so he went over to visit old friends and act stupid in Berlin).  The East Side Gallery is one of the longest segments of the Berlin Wall still standing.  It's been turned into an art installation.  Most of it is permanent/semi-permanent, but there are portions that are available for anyone to show up and paint anytime.  So, this afternoon, the boy and a friend went down there and put this up:
 


 
"Your neighbor fights for your defense"

Being overseas, and making the friends he has (heavy on German, UK, Ukrainian, and various other NATO countries), as well as the experience of being there when the war started and seeing and responding to the refugees firsthand, has put him in a rather cemented position.  He is better than I am/would be about giving individual Russians he meets a chance, but he also loves trolling vatniks on any online games he plays (he gets put onto European servers, so he sees them regularly).

I read the top line as "1 hr Nacho Bar...  (fart sound)"

[Gatorubet 30239]

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Your naked neighbor fights for your defense"
 

fify

[Brisketexan 105142]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

fify

Naked.  In a nacho bar.  NOW you're catching the Berlin vibe.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Naked.  In a nacho bar.  NOW you're catching the Berlin vibe.

According to the other graffiti, there is also a pupuseria.  

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28951]