Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8618

  • MillerEP

    7298

  • Schulz2.0

    3645

  • InkaUtexas

    3007

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN
AUS-97HORN

For the love of Christ woman,  stop posting the same fucking thing every 20 mins just to make your neurotic self feel better.     Bring something useful to the thread other than your inane babbli

closetohumping
closetohumping
InkaUtexas
InkaUtexas

I volunteered today. Log/Admin role to replace people for 30-60 days. The operation is in the west, or should the Orcs win will be pulled back behind the NATO wall. Either way the humanitarian effort

Posted Images

gsoda3

gsoda3 3256

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Baconboy said:

This keeps getting repeated but it is inaccurate. Security assurances can mean a lot of things. In the Budapest Memorandum the security assurance basically meant "we will respect your sovereignty and will not attack you". That's a lot different than "we will defend you".

If you want a longer explanation of our "assurances" click here

i mean.. kinda.  not really.  from the article..

 

Quote

Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.

Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances.

Beyond that, U.S. and Ukrainian officials did not discuss in detail how Washington might respond in the event of a Russian violation. That owed in part to then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He had his flaws, but he insisted that there be no revision of the boundaries separating the states that emerged from the Soviet collapse. Yeltsin respected Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. Vladimir Putin does not.

U.S. officials did assure their Ukrainian counterparts, however, that there would be a response. The United States should continue to provide reform and military assistance to Ukraine. It should continue sanctions on Russia. It should continue to demand that Moscow end its aggression against Ukraine. And it should continue to urge its European partners to assist Kyiv and keep the sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24787

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Russia is not nuking anyone holy fucking shit. 

your not paying attention.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/02/02/america_isnt_ready_for_russias_battlefield_nuclear_weapons_814821.html

Quote
 

With an estimated 100,000 Russian troops positioned near Ukraine’s border and President Biden promising to assist Ukraine against a Russian invasion, the risk of nuclear weapons use is once again on the rise. During the Cold War, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), long-range strategic bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) were the primary threat to human civilization. Today, however, it is Russia’s low-yield short-range battlefield nuclear weapons that pose the greatest nuclear threat.

Unlike strategic nuclear weapons like ICBMs and SLBMs, which have a range of more than 10,000 miles and yields above 150 kilotons, battlefield nuclear weapons are primarily short-range (less than 650 miles) and low yield (.1 to 20 kilotons). The Russians maintain an estimated 3,000-6,000 intra-theater nuclear weapons—many of which fall into this category. The United States, however, has no similar arsenal of battlefield nuclear weapons.

In recent years, Russian nuclear weapons were integrated into the nation’s defense posture in much the same way the United States integrated nuclear weapons into its defense of Europe during the Eisenhower administration under the New Look Policy.  President Vladimir Putin’s comments concerning his willingness to use nuclear weapons confirm fears that he views nuclear weapons as usable weapons on the battlefield.

different nukes, not blow up the world nukes but definitely not a line we are likely willing to cross ourselves. In fact, it sounds like we don't even have these types of nukes.

Edited by troph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Braff Zacklin

Braff Zacklin 13561

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, troph said:

folks, i'm just really distraught right now. Russia has a "use nukes" policy against the US and the US just said fuck with a NATO country and we are coming for your ass.  this is really, really bad. and that's on top of best case - a ton of people die in the coming weeks and this is contained in Ukraine.  I don't actually think he should be assassinated, I do wish he was gone though, that's for sure. really just want to hug my kids right now tbqh.

Nothing wrong with wanting Putin assassinated as that would be best for not only the Ukraine, but for the rest of the world.

If it's going to happen, however, it needs to come from within (i.e., the wealthy elite who, so far, have been content to let Putin play frontman).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12977

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Ukraine should off those captured soldiers cartel-style live on TikTok. 

While that would certainly make for good TV (for those who lack a soul) it would turn world opinion against Ukraine.  The Chechins didn't give a rats ass about world opinion.   The Ukrainians do.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

This is providing the US a playbook for taking Nova Scotia.

I can have us in New Brunswick by dawn with minimal civilian casualties.  
 

Fucking insane how quickly they’ve arrested thousands of Russian anti-war protestors.  For what is literally, legitimate political discourse.  I’m guessing if you attack a Moscow cop, you don’t live long enough to hear the echo of the baton breaking your skull on a cold Russian night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nicole44

Nicole44 22059

Posted
Posted

But Biden, for now, holds off on imposing some of the most severe sanctions, including cutting Russia out of the SWIFT payment system, which allows for the transfers of money from bank to bank around the globe, or Russia’s energy sector.

On the military front, he vows to defend “every inch” of NATO territory, but reaffirms that no American troops will be deployed to Washington’s ally.

“As I made crystal clear, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with a full force of American power,” Biden says.

The president adds, however: “Our forces will not be engaged in a conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-february-24-2022/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6135

Posted
Posted
Just now, Braff Zacklin said:

Nothing wrong with wanting Putin assassinated as that would be best for not only the Ukraine, but for the rest of the world.

If it's going to happen, however, it needs to come from within (i.e., the wealthy elite who, so far, have been content to let Putin play frontman).

This.  All those movies about conspiracies to take down Hitler?  One of those actually playing out without any foreign involvement is what we should be rooting for. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

Ukraine should off those captured soldiers cartel-style live on TikTok. 

That would only serve Putin’s narrative that they are the baddies. It’s better to amputate a limb or two so they don’t die from their “wounds” and then send them back home. Wounded soldiers are a bigger burden mentally and physically for the army to deal with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, troph said:

In fact, it sounds like we don't even have these types of nukes.


nope, but we’ve known that Russia has been developing them for quite some time. They’ve even had some battlefield nuke test accidents they have had to lie about (badly) to the world. 

Edited by Doc Reeves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29671

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, troph said:

definitively glad you aren't in charge Dr. Beeper.

He's not Beeper. That's immortal's new account who's been negging you for no apparent reason.

21 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Ah, that's why I don't like this guy.  Didn't know it was Beeper back from the dead

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28770

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Eastwood said:
46 minutes ago, 'stache said:
If Putin drops a nuke, would the west stop bullshitting about sanction carveouts and just shut them off completely? I mean, what's it going to take to stop being greedy assholes and actually try to resolve this situation?

The moment any deliverable capable of carrying a nuclear warhead is airborn or a satellite picks up the double flash, the whole world shuts down and we're in about a 30 minute window of knowing whether or not we have entered a full on nuclear war.

Debbie Downer Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
  • Author
Posted
different nukes, not blow up the world nukes but definitely not a line we are likely willing to cross ourselves. In fact, it sounds like we don't even have these types of nukes.
To add to this, the United States tinkered with similar battlefield nukes that could be launched with artillery or even launched off of a stand with the Davy Crockett system. Both were shown to be too dangerous to friendly ground troops and our missile systems quickly became accurate enough to be much more effective. That also is the reason for our yields going down. The large yield weapons were to make sure they had affect on target, even with a fairly bad miss. Now that we can land it within a meter of anything we aim at from thousands of miles away, we could reduce the yields.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
Just now, SimonBolivar said:

 

 

No idea if true, but Intel crab seemed to belive it.

Pretty sure CNN accidentally interviewed those guys earlier. Thought they walked up to a Ukraine squad and during their convo found out they were actually Russian paratroopers. They were on the interior of the airport and shooting towards the perimeter, so that means the Ukraine had an effective counterattack to retake it. That’s bad news for Russia. It likely means they overstretched their advance and mistimed those paratroopers so they got stuck without armor support. Ukraine is making them pay.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10958

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Pretty sure CNN accidentally interviewed those guys earlier. Thought they walked up to a Ukraine squad and during their convo found out they were actually Russian paratroopers. They were on the interior of the airport and shooting towards the perimeter, so that means the Ukraine had an effective counterattack to retake it. That’s bad news for Russia. It likely means they overstretched their advance and mistimed those paratroopers so they got stuck without armor support. Ukraine is making them pay.

They did and CNN then said the Russians told them that CNN could stay if they wanted. They heard jets overhead and the CNN crew got the fuck out of there.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad

Chad 1728

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, XYZ said:

Isn’t the Chernobyl area, like, you know, radioactive?

The majority of the radiation was contained within the shelter they finished back in 2017. There are some pockets of radiation in the exclusion zone, but it's largely safe for the most part now. Chernobyl no longer produces power and has been decommissioned, but it's still used to route power throughout Ukraine and that's likely why Russia seized it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...