Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Bevo 13923]

50 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

[Chad Fuck 18166]

Macron has been a pleasant surprise to me.  

Very much so. Never thought I’d see a French leader show such leadership. He is not fucking around.

[atomheartbevo 90670]

47 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Macron has been a pleasant surprise to me.  

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Very much so. Never thought I’d see a French leader show such leadership. He is not fucking around.

France, Finland, and Poland wanting to settle some historical grievances,

[Bevo 13923]

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Very much so. Never thought I’d see a French leader show such leadership. He is not fucking around.

 

Is there a reason that he makes tough speeches yet France has only given 0.07% of its GDP to the war effort? That is 400% less than the US, 5000% less than Estonia as a percentage of GDP.

[Nivek 17424]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Macron has been a pleasant surprise to me.  

You should have seen how he handled a bully trying to yank his arm.   

[Nivek 17424]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

Very much so. Never thought I’d see a French leader show such leadership. He is not fucking around.

Also don't believe the myth.  The French have a long history of fighting and bravery.   

[MillerEP 30907]

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

i was just thinking this week that i've not seen lavrov in a while.  now twitter says he might be dismissed.

[bolverk 30366]

5 hours ago, Bevo said:

 

Is there a reason that he makes tough speeches yet France has only given 0.07% of its GDP to the war effort? That is 400% less than the US, 5000% less than Estonia as a percentage of GDP.

Your chart only shows "bilateral aid," meaning direct aid from France to Ukraine. The majority of their financial support has come through the EU.

[B00M 6735]

Interesting watch

 

[Johnny Chimpo 489]

I really appreciate all y’all who keep posting news in this thread. It’s one of my favorites to keep up with. This aggression will not stand! 

[atomheartbevo 90670]

47 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i was just thinking this week that i've not seen lavrov in a while.  now twitter says he might be dismissed.

If so, he would be the second or third high-ranking official dismissed in recent weeks.  Would be interesting given he is the public face of the Russian government at times.

[Chad Fuck 18166]

If so, he would be the second or third high-ranking official dismissed in recent weeks.  Would be interesting given he is the public face of the Russian government at times.

And also because Lavrov is one of the more effective of Putin’s lackeys. Though Putin has diminished that by making him go out and say laughably false statements where you can see even Lavrov is cringing saying it.

[Bevo 13923]

59 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Your chart only shows "bilateral aid," meaning direct aid from France to Ukraine. The majority of their financial support has come through the EU.

Did they give more through the EU than other EU countries? They are near the very bottom of EU countries. Estonia for example is in the EU and has given 5000% more.

[bolverk 30366]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Did they give more through the EU than other EU countries? They are near the very bottom of EU countries. Estonia for example is in the EU and has given 5000% more.

Here's the chart that shows both. I didn't say they were leaders, but as a share of their GDP, they've given more than the UK and the US as of the end of February. Yes, they can do more, but I don't understand why you always like to single out France to shit on.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

[Bevo 13923]

20 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Here's the chart that shows both. I didn't say they were leaders, but as a share of their GDP, they've given more than the UK and the US as of the end of February. Yes, they can do more, but I don't understand why you always like to single out France to shit on.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

It isn't that I single them out. It is that Macron makes tough statements that the facts don't support. It is just words. So the way it flows is that someone posts Macron tweets and everyone gets fired up and then I post chill the enthusiasm. The last time I posted on the subject was when Macron was shitting on Germany for not giving enough when the facts show that they have given a lot more total and a lot more by percentage GDP than France. If you want to cheer, cheer for:

 

 

Not:

 

 

And certainly not:

 

'

[Schulz2.0 29289]

[27-25 2087]

28 minutes ago, Bevo said:

It isn't that I single them out. It is that Macron makes tough statements that the facts don't support. It is just words. So the way it flows is that someone posts Macron tweets and everyone gets fired up and then I post chill the enthusiasm. The last time I posted on the subject was when Macron was shitting on Germany for not giving enough when the facts show that they have given a lot more total and a lot more by percentage GDP than France. If you want to cheer, cheer for:

 

 

Not:

 

 

And certainly not:

 

'

Estonia certainly has my vote of praise, for more than one reason.

[bolverk 30366]

39 minutes ago, Bevo said:

It isn't that I single them out. It is that Macron makes tough statements that the facts don't support. It is just words. So the way it flows is that someone posts Macron tweets and everyone gets fired up and then I post chill the enthusiasm. The last time I posted on the subject was when Macron was shitting on Germany for not giving enough when the facts show that they have given a lot more total and a lot more by percentage GDP than France. If you want to cheer, cheer for:

 

You think I don't cheer for the support provided by other countries? What Macron just stated was part of a much larger point about the need to clearly state what actions should be taken to deter Russian aggression. In fact, he freely admits that France and the rest of the EU have not done enough. He's got domestic battles to fight, too, with opposition from a political party that supports Putin and has received funding from the Kremlin.

Read the relevant portion of the interview yourself. It's rather long and in-depth so I'm only going to post a portion of it and am bolding the specific question and the answer he gave. To be honest, you're taking one small quote from a single tweet and commenting on it without the necessary context.

I do hope you read the whole thing though, because he's not being critical of anyone other than Russia.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/05/02/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english

https://archive.is/l05rh

Interview segment in spoiler:

Spoiler

The Economist: Let’s go back to each of these risks, starting with the geopolitical threat to our continent: Russia. How would you characterise the risk? Is it of a new aggression by Russia? And how should we respond in that case?

Emmanuel Macron: Russia is a threat that we know, that we have always seen. I’m speaking for all Europeans and particularly for Germany and France, because we were responsible for saving the Minsk agreements and the Normandy process. We were right to take the diplomatic route. I have no regrets about what was done during all those years. These steps undoubtedly slowed things down and also enabled us to build joint European demands with regard to Putin. A power of peace, power of balance. The change that has taken place is that Russia has changed, and we have had to adapt to it. Russia has made choices. It made a choice in 2014, but it was a limited event. But above all, it made a radical choice on a completely different scale in February 2022, that of completely changing the logic, in other words, of abandoning respect for international law and participation in international forums. Since 2022, Vladimir Putin has not himself set foot in a G20 summit, and he was excluded from the G8, which became the G7 in 2014. It has decided to break international law by violating the internationally recognised borders of a permanent member of the Security Council. To this extent, and with such consistency, it’s unprecedented. It has also committed war crimes, again with unprecedented force. It is the one that launched this war of aggression against a sovereign country on European soil.

The shift should not be underestimated either. On the question of the oblasts, Russia tried to construct a kind of legal screen, which was then abandoned. Many people have underestimated the shift that took place between February and April 2022. In February, Russia was still trying to formulate a narrative that would be compatible with international law, with this idea of a “special operation”. Now Russia itself uses the word “war” and acknowledges it. It has broken all the frameworks and has basically returned to a logic of total war.

Since 2022, Russia has increasingly added an explicit, sometimes uninhibited, nuclear threat, as voiced by President Putin himself, and has done so systematically. It has added hybridity, provoking and fuelling conflicts that were sometimes latent in other zones. It has added aggressions and threats in space and at sea, and it has added cyber and information threats and attacks on an unprecedented scale, which we have decided, together with our European partners, to reveal for the first time. Today, Russia has become an over-equipped power that continues to invest massively in weapons of all kinds and that has adopted a posture of non-compliance with international law, of territorial aggression and of aggression in all known domains of conflict. Today it is also a power of regional destabilisation wherever it can be. And so yes, Russia, through its behaviour and its choices, has become a threat to Europeans’ security. Despite all the efforts made by France, but also by Germany and the United States.

The Economist: What is the time frame? What happens if Russia tries to attack another country that is not a member of nato? Will we Europeans, nato members, react?

Emmanuel Macron: Each time we have to do so according to the circumstances.The case arose in Ukraine, a country that is not a member of nato, but is on European soil, 1,500 kilometres from our borders. In another unprecedented move, the Europeans reacted within 24 hours, meeting on the very day of the invasion. France held the presidency [of the eu Council] at the time. We immediately imposed sanctions and decided on the principle of supporting Ukraine. Then, in the space of a few months, we took increasingly tough decisions. First, we delivered tanks, then medium and long-range missiles to protect and target Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, we also delivered air-defence equipment. And we decided to open up a path for Ukraine towards nato and the European Union. So we’ve already made massive progress, providing unprecedented assistance to a country that is not a member of nato, because it is under attack and because our security is at stake.

Added to this is what we decided on February 26th with all the heads of state and government, the 20 or so who were here, Europeans and non-Europeans, here in Paris, and which has been followed by action. I welcome today the very strong commitment, in particular of the Canadians and the Americans, alongside the British and the members of the eu. Together, we have decided to go even further, in other words, to manufacture in Ukraine, to train in Ukraine, to better protect the borders of Belarus and Moldova, and also to have maintenance carried out on Ukrainian soil. We have also created new coalitions, such as the one on medium-range missiles, which has already produced initial results with superior capabilities, and the deliveries that we will be making by the summer. What I also wanted to reopen on February 26th was this famous strategic ambiguity, which should convince Putin that we are determined and that he will have to count on our determination.

The Economist: Do you stand by what you said about possibly sending ground troops to Ukraine?

Emmanuel Macron: Absolutely. As I said, I’m not ruling anything out, because we are facing someone who is not ruling anything out. We have undoubtedly been too hesitant by defining the limits of our action to someone who no longer has any and who is the aggressor! Our capacity is to be credible, to continue to help, to give Ukraine the means to resist. But our credibility also depends on a capacity to deter by not giving full visibility as to what we will or will not do. Otherwise we weaken ourselves, which is the framework within which we have been operating until now. In fact, many countries said that in the weeks that followed that they understood our approach, that they agreed with our position and that this position was a good thing. I have a clear strategic objective: Russia cannot win in Ukraine. If Russia wins in Ukraine, there will be no security in Europe. Who can pretend that Russia will stop there? What security will there be for the other neighbouring countries, Moldova, Romania, Poland, Lithuania and the others? And behind that, what credibility for Europeans who would have spent billions, said that the survival of the continent was at stake and not have given themselves the means to stop Russia? So yes, we mustn’t rule anything out because our objective is that Russia must never be able to win in Ukraine.

The Economist: Do you think that other leaders will end up having to share your position on this if Russia is finally to be deterred?

Emmanuel Macron: You should never engage in political fiction. But I am convinced of one thing, and that is that this is the basic condition for European security and military credibility. So if Russia decided to go further, we will in any case all have to ask ourselves this question. That’s why I wanted this strategic wake-up call for my counterparts, but also for our nations. France is a country that has carried out military interventions, including in recent times. We deployed several thousand troops in the Sahel to fight terrorism, which could have posed a threat to us. We did so at the request of sovereign states. If the Russians were to break through the front lines, if there were a Ukrainian request—which is not the case today—we would legitimately have to ask ourselves this question. So I think to rule it out a priori is not to learn the lessons of the past two years. At the nato summit in the summer of 2022, we all ruled out the delivery of tanks, deep-strike missiles, aircraft. We are now all in the process of doing this, so it would be wrong to rule out the rest. But above all, it would be wrong in terms of credibility and deterrence vis-à-vis the Russians to rule it out. I note, by the way, that the aggressiveness of the Russian response to what I said showed that this was having the desired effect, which was to say: Don’t think that we will stop here if you don’t stop.

The Economist: Other European leaders seem to have lost their understanding of the importance of hard power in the world. Is that due to infantilisation? Because they outsourced their security to the Americans?

Emmanuel Macron: Listen, I think you always have to remember where you come from. I’m not lecturing anyone. France was liberated [during world war two] with its allies and thanks to its internal resistance. It emerged with the same fortitude and international generosity as our allies, who could have left us on the sidelines. We were very weakened. The war put us at the heart of the international system and helped us to build a strong army. And France has equipped itself with a strategic grammar and military capabilities that are the product of this history. We acquired nuclear weapons very early on, which gave us a form of strategic maturity. Our British friends also have it, with a closer relationship with the United States of America.

And as for the rest of Europe, who can judge? In a world that moves so quickly, we think that everything is fast. You have a reunited Europe that is the product of the last 35 years, but some of whose members lived under the Soviet yoke from 1947 to 1990 and feel that they were abandoned by the West. And since 1990, this Europe has thought of its security essentially in terms of the American shield and nato. I said as much in your columns in the interview in 2019 [the “brain death” of nato], and I take full responsibility for what I said. This does not allow Europe to have a common security framework, a common concept, because it puts us in the position of thinking about our security only by way of an ally who is being asked to think about it, to carry far too much of the burden, the United States of America. Above all, it puts Europe back to back with Russia, of course, even if we are in fact back to back with Russia today because of the war in Ukraine.

So there is indeed a strategic awakening in Europe as a result of Russian aggression. This awakening is taking place in several ways. We are seeing it today with the capability proposal put forward by the Germans, the European missile-defence shield. Or with Poland, which says it is ready to host nato nuclear weapons. I think that we Europeans need to get round the table and build a coherent framework. That’s what I’ve been saying since 2017. As Europeans, we need to work out how we can credibly defend our space and how, in a credible and sustainable way, we can build a guarantee of security for each of the member states—as I said in Bratislava—including for the countries on Europe’s eastern flank. nato provides one of these answers, and there is no question of brushing nato aside. But this framework is much broader than what is currently being done within nato. What I would like to see is a discussion within the framework of the European Political Community. You have around the table all the countries of Europe in the broadest sense of the term, and we have a basis for discussion with the cooperation arrangements that exist among member states of the eu, but also bilateral cooperation. The most structural for us in this respect is undoubtedly the one we have with the United Kingdom, and the Lancaster House treaties.

Now, let's not get sidetracked and muddy up this thread with unnecessary bullshit, because we can easily slide into criticizing all sorts of individuals and groups that would like to see Ukraine, NATO, and the EU fail.

Edited May 2 by bolverk

[bolverk 30366]

Both of these are pretty dang satisfying

 

[MissingInAction 25586]

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Sawbonz said:

Can someone make this avatar size for me, because fuck that dog.

[bolverk 30366]

 

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3859024-russia-lost-more-than-24000-soldiers-and-308-tanks-in-east-in-april.html

[bolverk 30366]

From a month ago and not included in figures posted above.

Quote

 

France to provide new missiles, used armored vehicles to Ukraine, defense minister says
Paris would send ‘hundreds’ of vehicles over the next year, Sébastien Lecornu tells La Tribune Dimanche.

France will send new surface-to-air missiles and old armored vehicles to Ukraine, the country’s defense minister said on Sunday. 

Sébastien Lecornu told La Tribune Dimanche that President Emmanuel Macron had asked him to design a “new aid package” to help Kyiv defend against Russia's invasion.

This will “notably include old equipment from our armies, which is still functional,” he said. “To hold such a long frontline, the Ukrainian army needs, for example, our armored vehicles — this is absolutely key for troop mobility and is part of Ukraine’s requests.”

Asked how many vehicles France would provide, Lecornu said: “We're talking in the hundreds for 2024 and early 2025.” 

He said France would also provide a “new batch of Aster 30 missiles” to Ukraine.“We are also developing remotely operated munitions in a very short timeframe, for delivery to the Ukrainians as early as this summer,” he said.

 

 

Good interview with the new Latvian foreign defense minister.

She is the first official to have publicly acknowledged, in this interview, that Ukraine has received Western weapons with permission to hit Russia. She insists that strikes on Russia are legitimate. And that ultimately, the Russian army "must stop in Russia".

Snippet from interview:

Quote

 

Is time on Ukraine’s side or Russia’s?

I don't think time plays for Russia.

Ukraine is getting military support, and also political, legal, sanction support. All of these certainly play for Ukraine's victory.

But the road for this is very painful. It costs lives. It costs health, and environmental damage. It costs Ukraine more than anything else. It's horrible.

I'm afraid that our partners might think that if time is on Ukraine’s side, then everything can be kept as it is. My vision is that something has to change. Maybe we can get support for striking Russian territory?

I fully agree. Ukraine needs not only air defence or munitions, Ukraine needs the deep precision strikes capability…

On Russian territory?

Also on the Russian territory from where Russia is attacking Ukraine. Because that's covered by international law: you can strike not only Ukraine's sovereign territory, but also those places from where Russia is attacking.

Ukraine needs long-range weapons.

Ukraine needs integrated air missile defence that involves air-to-air capabilities.

That is what is being provided not only by the US package, but also by other partners, like F-16s, pilots’ training, long-range drones, ATACMS, and so on and so forth.

That sort of capability is coming to Ukraine. Some of it has arrived already.

And again: Ukraine is allowed to use it all under international law. If Russia is attacking Ukraine, Ukraine has a right to strike them back.

At the moment, our partners tend to lay down the condition that Western weapons are not to be used outside Ukrainian territory. Do you see that changing?

It could change.

And there are already countries that have provided those weapons without conditions to Ukraine.

Not everything is said aloud, and better that it's not said aloud in certain times, but that there is effect on the battlefield.

So indeed there are various choices, whether saying things aloud or just doing the right thing.

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29289]

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29289]

 

 

[Parliament 14618]

3 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

The American Military-Industrial Complex continues to deliver.

[Schulz2.0 29289]

 

 

[Parliament 14618]

Just now, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Again, like I said, our MIC fucking rocks.  Why can't the Europeans do the same.

[Armybrat 41436]

On 5/1/2024 at 9:46 AM, AUS-97HORN said:

these drones are carrying claymores or some variation of a 60-81mm morter shell.   

Both of which have a 10% or higher kill range of between 35-50m  (38-55 yards), and that number goes up the closer it gets.

40-50 yards is the farthest "normal" range for a 12 guage. 

I mean I guess blasting it out of the sky at 20 yards giving you a 35% change of dying is better than the 95% chance if the fucker detonates on you.. but yeesh. that math sucks either way.

Get a 10 gauge to take down those ducks farther out.

[Viper 12221]

17 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

I'm no expert, but it really seems like if we just provide them with all the shells they need and a steady supply of atacms and himars, it would go a long way to stabilizing the front and degrading Russian combat effectiveness. 

[Chad Fuck 18166]

Again, like I said, our MIC fucking rocks.  Why can't the Europeans do the same.

Arsenal of Democracy 2.0

[Dahobbs 18391]

50 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Again, like I said, our MIC fucking rocks.  Why can't the Europeans do the same.

Production of shells is something both Europe and the US haven't been great at. We've been able to send more ammo because we have huge stock piles, not because our production exceeds our European allies. Go take a look at the production capacity of South Korea and you'll see how inadequate our production is in comparison.  

[B00M 6735]

58 minutes ago, Parliament said:

The American Military-Industrial Complex continues to deliver.

It can and must do better 

[Schulz2.0 29289]

Factory involved in IRIS-T air defense is on fire near Berlin.

[Schulz2.0 29289]

 

 

[InkaUtexas 26943]

Dear EU. If your anti air systems are in Ukraine vs. guarding the borders with Holland, you will know when the russians are coming. Just a thought. Advance notification is a good thing.

 

[Bevo 13923]

3 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

 

Is this the old Dunder Mifflin Paper Company plant?

[RPM 26674]

4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Is this the old Dunder Mifflin Paper Company plant?

A Division of Schrute Industries

[Bevo 13923]

6 minutes ago, RPM said:

A Division of Schrute Industries

Now if I needed a good beet, Schrute Farms would be where I would go. But, I have my doubts about their 155 ammo.

[Chad Fuck 18166]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Factory involved in IRIS-T air defense is on fire near Berlin.

I wonder if the Germans will be so keen on the Russkies running around in their country now.  

[Schulz2.0 29289]

[InkaUtexas 26943]

Meh, that is just a gulag or three.

[Schulz2.0 29289]

[RockyMountainHighHorn 929]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Now if I needed a good beet, Schrute Farms would be where I would go. But, I have my doubts about their 155 ammo.

I sure fucking don’t. His brother Mo  would make some amazing ammo….might backfire a few times but hey the pluses outweigh the minuses 

Edited May 3 by RockyMountainHighHorn

[Schulz2.0 29289]

 

 

[B00M 6735]

Wait… ukraine has been operating patriots for year(s) now in actual combat but Germany thinks they need to be trained by Germans before anymore can be transferred?

 

[Johnny Chimpo 489]

yea I’m unclear on that point myself. 

[Viper 12221]

6 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

I always wondered why no one had tried sticking a gun on a drone before. What took so long?

Edited May 4 by Viper

[Schulz2.0 29289]

1 hour ago, B00M said:

Wait… ukraine has been operating patriots for year(s) now in actual combat but Germany thinks they need to be trained by Germans before anymore can be transferred?

 

Probably needing to train more crews.

[atomheartbevo 90670]

2 hours ago, Viper said:

I always wondered why no one had tried sticking a gun on a drone before. What took so long?

West Texas wild hog hunters: