Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Chad Fuck 18167]

He had to have choked on someone's chicken. It is the only way.

Hey, 20 rubles is 20 rubles.

[Sawbonz 28252]

5 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Hey, 20 rubles is 20 rubles.

Or $0.25

[atomheartbevo 90684]

Mentioned earlier, but shocked they acknowledged it.

 

[atomheartbevo 90684]

If you want the Polish ambassador dead and floating in a river, buy him plane tickets to Austin and tell him that he should check out Rainey Street.

 

[bolverk 30376]

37 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

Man I absolutely love when the Ruskies go cold war lies.  Thats when you know they are in deep shit

Check that Twitter account again.

[Bevo 13931]

25 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Or $0.25

In Philadelphia, it's worth 50 bucks.

 

[The Dog 44870]

53 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

Man I absolutely love when the Ruskies go cold war lies.  Thats when you know they are in deep shit

it's a parody account but still hard to notice at times. 

[Deej 77895]

57 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Hey, 20 rubles is 20 rubles.

 

[Superhero 9043]

Holy shit if true 

 

[MissingInAction 25605]

Pretty smart to leverage the threat of a new offensive.

[atomheartbevo 90684]

15 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Pretty smart to leverage the threat of a new offensive.

Yep.  If Wagner bails, Russian defense falls apart at Bakhmut and Shoigu looks bad/is blamed for lack of ammo.  if Shoigu caves in, he maybe taking ammo from other official Russian units to give to Wagner (which could hurt those units), and he has done what Prigozhin publicly told him to do, so Shoigu is fucked either way.

And regardless of whether Shoigu caves or not, regular Russian Army units will be pissed at Wagner, either for them leaving or them taking ammo away from them.

I guess Prigozhin is not afraid of Shoigu, which makes sense - Putin wouldn't have Shoigu in his inner circle if Shoigu was capable of killing his rivals.

[The Dog 44870]

 

[Pato del Muerto 53605]

7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

As the airline mechanics unions around the world take a peek at when their contract is up for renewal. 

[dimyh 1890]

I'm guessing Ruskies maintenance program is not much more advanced than me as a teenager with my first car. Waiting for the freak out once they have a major in air failure.

[The Dog 44870]

this is just north of the city of Donetsk.

[KYHorn 17647]

13 minutes ago, The Dog said:

this is just north of the city of Donetsk.

 

 

[MissingInAction 25605]

15 minutes ago, The Dog said:

this is just north of the city of Donetsk.

Can't see shit.

 

Nvm

Edited May 2, 2023 by MissingInAction
I can now see shit

[The Dog 44870]

whynotboth:

 

[bolverk 30376]

 

[bolverk 30376]

Discussion on Russia's manpower capacity in light of their losses from some of my follows.

(sorry if it's a little wonky because of the way twitter embeds)

 

[Kel Varnsen 8749]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

Brunette in back rude as hell

Edited May 2, 2023 by Kel Varnsen

[Schulz2.0 29305]

 

[MillerEP 30907]

 

[Schulz2.0 29305]

 

[MillerEP 30907]

 

[RDCanecutter 26927]

36 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

That kid might want to lay low for a bit.

[SquishMitten 10497]

On 5/1/2023 at 8:24 AM, Dahobbs said:

What extra systems are you proposing to send? Patriot is a super expensive niche system for Ukraine. It counters a very specific threat effectively (Russia' ballistic missiles/ "hypersonic" weapons). Other threats are going to be handled more efficiently by much cheaper and more ubiquitous systems. Unfortunately, the West in general doesn't have a ton of spare air defense systems.  We've literally been shipping new NASAMS as they are built. Many European countries have been cannibalizing's systems from their own active forces. And, as nice as the idea of sending Ukraine F-16s is, it wouldn't dramatically change the situation in Ukraine, but rather keep the status quo. That is unless we're willing to provide the hundreds (thousands?)of jets and weapon systems needed to allow Ukraine to actually engage the world's second largest air power within range of its air defense systems.  

From near the end of that balcony video above, it looked like a Gepard or other type of AA gun firing. Since there weren't any hits on the ground, I assume they were also succesful in knocking down whatever was incoming (maybe just drones, but either way, that's great to see a 100% success rate from). 

[Rimbo 27092]

 

[SquishMitten 10497]

On 5/1/2023 at 11:53 AM, Rimbo said:

It turns out the US Navy is actually the fourth largest air force. US Army Aviation is the second-largest. USAF the first. Russia is third.

But yes, it depends on how you count it. And if we're talking about force effectiveness... whole 'nother story entirely.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world

That's really cool. The US Air Force OR the Army, could individually take on the entire combined air fleet of Russia and have a substantial advantage.

[Rimbo 27092]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

this is just north of the city of Donetsk.

 

2 hours ago, KYHorn said:

 

 

[Rimbo 27092]

1 minute ago, SquishMitten said:

That's really cool. The US Air Force OR the Army, could individually take on the entire combined air fleet of Russia and have a substantial advantage.

I mean... the Navy could and would still have an advantage.

Our planes are better than their planes.

[956 Worldwide 35602]

18 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Like I said, if Russia was doing well, they wouldn't have spent the last 8 months trying to capture the 66th largest city in Ukraine, a city the size of San Marcos, and still not have captured it.

And more importantly, if Russia had done as well as their state media and propaganda bots/groups claims, they'd be releasing indisputable evidence to back it up left and right.  They'd be screaming from the rooftops and just plastering it everywhere.  It's like when the Apollo-deniers claim we didn't land on the moon, and they don't stop to think that  "if we didn't, the Soviets would have made damned sure the entire world knew about it."  Instead, what the Russians release about Ukraine is usually poorly edited/ambiguous videos, with lots of fakes mixed in, that show us very little that is verifiable.

And keep in mind the OS INT folks are usually the first ones to confirm where the Russians have had some success - they aren't shy about picking apart and verifying Russian claims.

You’ve sort of tangentially touched on something here that I’ve been thinking about lately, and so sorry for the TL;DR post that’s not about hard facts. I don’t think that Russia, at this point, has a coherent conception of victory. 
 

Last year I laid out some plausible war aims for the Kremlin and got pretty close on what VVP wanted.  It is blatantly clear that his maximalist aims are no longer remotely attainable. Even more minimal aims are no longer attainable. But there has not been a corresponding communication, even as subtext, of what revised war aims might be.
 

There is a theory, which I am skeptical of, that VVP is so isolated that he has no idea what’s going on and remains committed to the full de-Nazification plan. But it’s hard for me to see a clear alternative. I think the MOST likely is a hope to freeze the conflict more or less along current lines, ramp up destabilization ops, hope the West fractures, and regenerate for another day. But then again, the monomaniacal waste of forces in the pursuit of Bakhmut makes no sense as part of that tactic. 
 

At this point, I think even Kremlin leadership has no plan except to avoid a catastrophic loss. And that bodes ill for negotiations because without a clear idea of what winning looks like it’s not possible to make real decisions on what to settle for. 
 

I want to come back to Putin as a spook and not a military man.  He is not a strategic thinker and his background is a hindrance. Spooks operate in a world of more or less permanent hostility in which you can get the better of a rival or be gotten the better of— but clear defeat or victory is always elusive and defined by someone else anyway. And you’re never all in but also never all out. This is good in that he’s planned this war like a spook and that’s been bad. It’s bad in that he’s far too comfortable with permanent conflict as a “solution.” 

Edited May 2, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[Schulz2.0 29305]

 

[Rimbo 27092]

 

[Rimbo 27092]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You’ve sort of tangentially touched on something here that I’ve been thinking about lately, and so sorry for the TL;DR post that’s not about hard facts. I don’t think that Russia, at this point, has a coherent conception of victory. 
 

Last year I laid out some plausible war aims for the Kremlin and got pretty close on what VVP wanted.  It is blatantly clear that his maximalist aims are no longer remotely attainable. Even more minimal aims are no longer attainable. But there has not been a corresponding communication, even as subtext, of what revised war aims might be.
 

There is a theory, which I am skeptical of, that VVP is so isolated that he has no idea what’s going on and remains committed to the full de-Nazification plan. But it’s hard for me to see a clear alternative. I think the MOST likely is a hope to freeze the conflict more or less along current lines, ramp up destabilization ops, hope the West fractures, and regenerate for another day. But then again, the monomaniacal waste of forces in the pursuit of Bakhmut makes no sense as part of that tactic. 
 

At this point, I think even Kremlin leadership has no plan except to avoid a catastrophic loss. And that bodes ill for negotiations because without a clear idea of what winning looks like it’s not possible to make real decisions on what to settle for. 
 

I want to come back to Putin as a spook and not a military man.  He is not a strategic thinker and his background is a hindrance. Spooks operate in a world of more or less permanent hostility in which you can get the better of a rival or be gotten the better of— but clear defeat or victory is always elusive and defined by someone else anyway. And you’re never all in but also never all out. This is good in that he’s planned this war like a spook and that’s been bad. It’s bad in that he’s far too comfortable with permanent conflict as a “solution.” 

I don't think this conflict will be anything approaching permanent. At some point soon, one or more of the following happens:

1. Putin dies of natural causes

2. Russia's people revolt

3. Ukraine regains its borders.

There has been no victory possible for Russia for many months now. It's just a matter of wondering how many will die before then.

[SquishMitten 10497]

23 hours ago, Slacks said:

I searched "Ukraine" on twitter...

I don't believe anything on twitter. Not sure what to believe on surly on most days. What I can say is there is a pretty big difference in the narrative.

Twitter: UKRAINE IS OUT OF WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT - ALL DESTROYED BY RUSSIA.

Surly: Russia doesn't have shit, except old shit, which Ukraine destorys daily, and all of the missiles they launched were destroyed.

 

Somewhere in the middle is truth, i'm guessing.

Well, most everyone here is relatively intelligent, many with actual knowledge and understanding of the military, and most importantly, a real person. None of which is true about Twitter.

[KYHorn 17647]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

They also appear to be using animals against the enemy:

 

 

[DaggerHorns 3174]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I don't think this conflict will be anything approaching permanent. At some point soon, one or more of the following happens:

1. Putin dies of natural causes

2. Russia's people revolt

3. Ukraine regains its borders.

There has been no victory possible for Russia for many months now. It's just a matter of wondering how many will die before then.

Regardless of how it happens or when it happens, this is the end of Putin’s rule.

[The Dog 44870]

[bolverk 30376]

27 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I want to come back to Putin as a spook and not a military man.  He is not a strategic thinker and his background is a hindrance. Spooks operate in a world of more or less permanent hostility in which you can get the better of a rival or be gotten the better of— but clear defeat or victory is always elusive and defined by someone else anyway. And you’re never all in but also never all out. This is good in that he’s planned this war like a spook and that’s been bad. It’s bad in that he’s far too comfortable with permanent conflict as a “solution.” 

This immediately brought to mind:

[KYHorn 17647]

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by KYHorn

[Dahobbs 18420]

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

That's really cool. The US Air Force OR the Army, could individually take on the entire combined air fleet of Russia and have a substantial advantage.

The Army has pretty limited air-to-air capability. Those air assets are primarily transports and helicopters. The Navy (and Marines) would be a much better position. 

[SquishMitten 10497]

33 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

 

 

Interesting path for this guy. Just got out of the marines sometime in 2022, then went to Ukraine in November. Doesn't look like there was any disciplinary reasons why he got out. Wonder if it was for the sole purpose of going over to fight? Either way, he died doing what he truly believed in. Can't ask for much more than that in death. 

[MillerEP 30907]

 

[MillerEP 30907]

 

[MillerEP 30907]

 

[MillerEP 30907]

^I'm assuming these reforms include the ability to kick out Russia?

 

[atomheartbevo 90684]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

 

Russians would have shot it and maybe ate it.  But definitely shot it.

[Macanudo 13342]

30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Russians would have shot it and maybe ate it.  But definitely shot it.

Let's be fair.   They would have shot at it.   Whether they hit it is an entirely different question.

[ABSR 5373]

3 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

From near the end of that balcony video above, it looked like a Gepard or other type of AA gun firing. Since there weren't any hits on the ground, I assume they were also succesful in knocking down whatever was incoming (maybe just drones, but either way, that's great to see a 100% success rate from). 

Part of the problem with "successful" air defense is that it means you shoot down the missile...but then it hits the ground. So it does not go to the intended target, but in some cases the missile does not blow up, but tumbles to the ground where it could explode, or crash into something with violent force, or maybe have its remaining fuel could ignite.  Or a combination of these options.

In the Navy I remember watching videos of CIWS Phalanx cannons.  They were great and I felt confident they would hit everything coming in if they were turned on and operational.  But 1/3 of the videos showed the "destroyed" missile continuing to tumble and then collide with the ship, often exploding.  So less damage than a missile functioning properly and penetrating the ship hull, but still bad Juju.