Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[atomheartbevo 89,656]

 

[Chad Fuck 17,672]

5 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 

I don't want a pickle

I just want to ride my motorsickle

[Macanudo 12,976]

9 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

 "we are salting our own earth.  No western businesses will come back here for a generation."  

Except it won't be that way.  As soon as there is any wiggle room, western (especially U.S.) corporations will flood back in to make as much of the mighty dollar/ruble as possible.

[Chad Fuck 17,672]

2 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Except it won't be that way.  As soon as there is any wiggle room, western (especially U.S.) corporations will flood back in to make as much of the mighty dollar/ruble as possible.

One would hope, because our economic victories are often greater than our military ones.  But I suspect there will be reluctance.  All this is speculative of course.  You'd need a willing and active partner to engage with in Russia.  And to everyone's chagrin, Russia hasn't proven to have very many of those over the years.

[Macanudo 12,976]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

One would hope, because our economic victories are often greater than our military ones.  But I suspect there will be reluctance.  All this is speculative of course.  You'd need a willing and active partner to engage with in Russia.  And to everyone's chagrin, Russia hasn't proven to have very many of those over the years.

American corporations have no qualms about working with slimeballs, foreign or domestic.

[F250 28,768]

Just now, Macanudo said:

American corporations have no qualms about working with slimeballs, foreign or domestic.

I think it's more about the instability of Russia holding back investment rather than ethics.

[atomheartbevo 89,656]

4 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

American corporations have no qualms about working with slimeballs, foreign or domestic.

Russia confiscated assets of a shitload of western companies.  That will factor heavily into the equation for a lot of western companies in the future - run the risk of a Russian leader fucking around and doing that. 

[Chad Fuck 17,672]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

I think it's more about the instability of Russia holding back investment rather than ethics.

This.  American corporations DO care about their money.  

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

30 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 

[Macanudo 12,976]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Russia confiscated assets of a shitload of western companies.  That will factor heavily into the equation for a lot of western companies in the future - run the risk of a Russian leader fucking around and doing that. 

Riiiiiiiiiight.  The second the heat is off of corporations (sanctions wise), they'll be back in.    

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

32 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

 Add on top of that killing off all their breeding age males and Russia is going to wind up being like the Empire of Trebezond etc.

I've seen a lot of discussion of the shame of killing off so many 20 somethings to the future of the country, but it seems to me the scale is off.  It's a country of 100MM+ with a third of those people being between 18 and 45.  Losing even a half million of them doesn't seem like it would really throw that much of a wrench in things.  It certainly didn't for us or them in WWII, for instance, at a much bigger death scale once you move out a few years. 

[The Dog 44,023]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

 

WHAT AIRDEFENCE DOING?!????

[Chad Fuck 17,672]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've seen a lot of discussion of the shame of killing off so many 20 somethings to the future of the country, but it seems to me the scale is off.  It's a country of 100MM+ with a third of those people being between 18 and 45.  Losing even a half million of them doesn't seem like it would really throw that much of a wrench in things.  It certainly didn't for us or them in WWII, for instance, at a much bigger death scale once you move out a few years. 

Maybe that's true.  Of course, incentivizing the best of the rest to leave the country doesn't seem like a great idea either.  

How do you say, "Idiocracy" in Russian?

[The Dog 44,023]

 

[Telegraph_it 3,357]

I’ll be dipped. 
 

 

[RPM 26,318]

41 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I don't want a pickle

I just want to ride my motorsickle

I don't wanna die

I just want to ride my motorcy

 

 

cle

[SydneyCarton 48,081]

16 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've seen a lot of discussion of the shame of killing off so many 20 somethings to the future of the country, but it seems to me the scale is off.  It's a country of 100MM+ with a third of those people being between 18 and 45.  Losing even a half million of them doesn't seem like it would really throw that much of a wrench in things.  It certainly didn't for us or them in WWII, for instance, at a much bigger death scale once you move out a few years. 

 

14 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Maybe that's true.  Of course, incentivizing the best of the rest to leave the country doesn't seem like a great idea either.  

How do you say, "Idiocracy" in Russian?

What chad said. You're talking about 500k for this mobilization. But there have been steady folks leaving the country since the invasion, both genders but predominantly male in any field where they could leave and work elsewhere. So now you're talking not only those that left from brain drain, but 100k dead Russians already, and lets say another 500k dead soldiers, plus reports of over 250k other men who left the country in the past week avoiding mobilization.  It adds up fast. And it doesn't take much to upset the apple cart. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by SydneyCarton

[Brisketexan 105,100]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

 

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

@The Dog that is a fascinating thread.  While it makes sense that we found some production issues/inadequacies that we are addressing (or boosting capacity) these really jumped out at me, because it looks like the US Army (and possibly Marine Corps) are making some changes in their own units and tactics,  based on Ukrainian battlefield performance. Notably, artillery - while it could be we are going to send a lot more HIMARS to Ukraine, it’s more likely that we will also be converting some of our M777 units to HIMARS.   Which makes a lot of sense - the Ukrainians have tested them on a modern battlefield  against what used to be a near-peer and the kinds of hardware we would be facing in the future, far more thoroughly than anything we could replicate in training or in Afghanistan/Iraq.

I follow artillery stuff more than infantry on FB and Reddit, and there’s been talk about reducing the amount of barrel artillery in favor of MLRS/HIMARS, because with the range and accuracy, and the kinds of targets that Ukraine has successfully hit, as well as the mobility factor, it makes sense to start considering what we use, now that we have actual battlefield experience in hand to justify the changes/ costs.  Also, moving to boost the acquisition/use of the more accurate  munitions (Excaliberm etc,) used in the M777s makes sense.  These things could also lower our logistics requirements in the long run (improved  accuracy/range = fewer munitions expended to hit a target )  

And something else - those numbers and that hardware that he mentioned below, some of that is going to be buying us the newest generations of hardware, as we are sending the previous stuff to Ukraine,  Those 100 HIMARS could be replacing previous-gen HIMARS.

The bit about Marines buying Stingers for the first time in 17 years - either they had a large stock they hadn’t worked through, or possibly it’s an acknowledgement that they need to boost their anti- drone/UAV capabilities.

There’s the saying about we always prepare/train to fight our last war, but looking like we are looking to the future.

 

 

1 hour ago, Laxtonto said:

I wonder how much the from shift barrel artillery to missile based mobile systems are tied to the increase in UAV direct visuals and how much easier it is to now paint targets instead of having exact coordinates prior to the incorporation of UAVs. 
 

There will always be a place for barrel artillery, but the ability to pinpoint strike of the MLRS/HIMARS, now without the reliance on satellite or airborne reconnaissance intel or on the ground spotters makes their flexibility extremely valuable. It made sense to rely heavily on barreled artillery for most purposes because, in the past, there was a limited number of real-time opportunities “worth” the price of the ammunition. Now, UAVs make target identification much simpler, either through a identify via reconnaissance and verify with a UAV, or a real-time spotter approach. If you can identify high value targets faster, before they are able to me moved, the missile systems increase in value and flexibility significantly.

The changes in the modern battlefield are fascinating and we will continue see the impact of things like UAVs for unit level target acquisition and a shift in the timeframe in which units can stay stationary without some form of hardened emplacement. The faster you can identify and then target mobile units, the less time those units have downtime to reload, repair, or in the case of mobile artillery systems, be able to execute their operational capabilities. 

Thanks for all of these posts.  I can only imagine what it's like in the Pentagon right now -- all the wargaming for "what will modern warfare between two well-equipped militaries look like?" is being answered as we speak.  We (and anyone else paying attention) are learning a metric shitton about how wars are to be fought, what's most valuable, least valuable, etc.  As just a few examples, we have reinforced our lessons about logistics and supply lines, both our own and our opponent's.  We have learned how a wide variety of drones are integrated and used on the battlefield.  We have learned about the usefulness and effectiveness of various artillery systems (if you can make it count, it's better to use a $50k rocket than a $5k artillery barrage, etc.  We've seen our thoughts on air superiority/supremacy emphasized (a big reason that Russia is fucked is because it can't control the skies)....and along with that, we may also be learning that against a well-equipped foe with a shitload of MANPADS, air supremacy may be functionally impossible, which would be a big change to our approach to the battlefield (it's easy to control the skies in Iraq and Afghanistan.....it's a lot harder when your foe is a well-armed nation state).  And a shitload more.  Truly fascinating.

[Brisketexan 105,100]

54 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

That guy is pretty fascinating.  I was really struck by something he said just before leaving and that was "we are salting our own earth.  No western businesses will come back here for a generation."  Add on top of that killing off all their breeding age males and Russia is going to wind up being like the Empire of Trebezond etc.  A bunch of warlord rump states fighting for the title of a once great but now fallen nation.  It really didn't have to be that way, and it can all be chalked up to the hubris of one man.  Astounding.

This.  This is the real tragedy for Russia.  It is condemning itself to be an economic backwater for at least a generation.

44 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Except it won't be that way.  As soon as there is any wiggle room, western (especially U.S.) corporations will flood back in to make as much of the mighty dollar/ruble as possible.

Disagree, for the reasons below.

40 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

One would hope, because our economic victories are often greater than our military ones.  But I suspect there will be reluctance.  All this is speculative of course.  You'd need a willing and active partner to engage with in Russia.  And to everyone's chagrin, Russia hasn't proven to have very many of those over the years.

 

35 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

American corporations have no qualms about working with slimeballs, foreign or domestic.

 

30 minutes ago, F250 said:

I think it's more about the instability of Russia holding back investment rather than ethics.

 

29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Russia confiscated assets of a shitload of western companies.  That will factor heavily into the equation for a lot of western companies in the future - run the risk of a Russian leader fucking around and doing that. 

When it comes to both foreign governments (e.g., Euro countries that need oil and gas) and foreign private corporations, the lesson learned here is "don't depend on Russia/put anything in Russia that you can't afford to lose."

There's a reason there is little foreign investment in Venezuela: the chances of your investment going poof/the government just taking your shit/etc. are too high.  Too much risk for minimal reward.

Russia isn't even that big a market for foreign goods -- its economy is the 11th largest globally, but 90% of that is O&G and agriculture, all of which is "owned" by oligarchs.  As a consumer economy, it's fucking Ohio-sized.  Are YOU going to invest in a $800 million car factory there, knowing the government may take it, or Russia may do something stupid again tomorrow, cutting it off from the global economy?

It's like the well-known crazy hot chick.  A few guys will find the risk worth it to stick their dick in there, but sooner or later, their tires will get slashed and/or they'll get stabbed.  Most guys will steer clear and pass up the opportunity.  Not ALL, but most.

And yeah, Russia losing its best and brightest who have already fled the country isn't helping at all.  A population that was heavy on the low-IQ servile peasant type just got skewed even more that way.  That ain't great for long term economic prospects.

[Humble Beast 258]

10 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

I’ll be dipped. 
 

 

Fortunately it looks like Russia lacks the physical capability to attack other European energy infrastructure. Then the big concern would be cyber attacks as retribution for this false flag/attack.

[Teddyballgame 441]

Desperate times

 

[Gatorubet 30,224]

25 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Maybe that's true.  Of course, incentivizing the best of the rest to leave the country doesn't seem like a great idea either.  

How do you say, "Idiocracy" in Russian?

[Humble Beast 258]

 

[The Dog 44,023]

 

[Trey3216 15,346]

29 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've seen a lot of discussion of the shame of killing off so many 20 somethings to the future of the country, but it seems to me the scale is off.  It's a country of 100MM+ with a third of those people being between 18 and 45.  Losing even a half million of them doesn't seem like it would really throw that much of a wrench in things.  It certainly didn't for us or them in WWII, for instance, at a much bigger death scale once you move out a few years. 

Post WWII, we had a fertility rate in the high 3's if not low 4's, as did Russia. Their fertility rate now is in the low to mid 1's.  Eliminating 1/2million breeding age males is going to absolutely devastate their population 20 years from now.  

[elfenix 34,234]

 

[Gatorubet 30,224]

7 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Post WWII, we had a fertility rate in the high 3's if not low 4's, as did Russia. Their fertility rate now is in the low to mid 1's.  Eliminating 1/2million breeding age males is going to absolutely devastate their population 20 years from now.  

Pensioner = fucked

[Macanudo 12,976]

14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Am I the only one who thinks the "girlfriend" in this picture is hotter  than the "other woman"?

[RPM 26,318]

1 minute ago, Macanudo said:

Am I the only one who thinks the "girlfriend" in this picture is hotter  than the "other woman"?

Can't see the other girl's ass, so ...

[Gatorubet 30,224]

1 minute ago, Macanudo said:

Am I the only one who thinks the "girlfriend" in this picture is hotter  than the "other woman"?

Billy Joel had enough Christie Brinkley sex and cheated on her.   Little head cared nothing about your who-is-hotter metrics.

 

And I agree with you. 

[utee94 15,817]

6 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Am I the only one who thinks the "girlfriend" in this picture is hotter  than the "other woman"?

 

[Gengs1 2,583]

52 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

I’ll be dipped. 
 

 

Get ready for the bots to Blame Ukraine for this. 
even if they did it 

[Fico 1,778]

55 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

What chad said. You're talking about 500k for this mobilization. But there have been steady folks leaving the country since the invasion, both genders but predominantly male in any field where they could leave and work elsewhere. So now you're talking not only those that left from brain drain, but 100k dead Russians already, and lets say another 500k dead soldiers, plus reports of over 250k other men who left the country in the past week avoiding mobilization.  It adds up fast. And it doesn't take much to upset the apple cart. 

Add to that the number of physically and mentally disabled that will need long term care.

[Fico 1,778]

9 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Get ready for the bots to Blame Ukraine for this. 
even if they did it 

They are going to blame the US to sow discord between our allies. 

[fattyflattie 4,639]

31 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Am I the only one who thinks the "girlfriend" in this picture is hotter  than the "other woman"?

Everyone does.  Other than having perfected her pissed face, she’s the winner. 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[Foosters 17,852]

9 minutes ago, Fico said:

They are going to blame the US to sow discord between our allies. 

We have posters on this website blaming the US right now. One, has been banned at least 3 times for spreading misinformation, Anti-vax info, and Russian propaganda. But he keeps coming back, and the mods condone it. 

[ABSR 5,310]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've seen a lot of discussion of the shame of killing off so many 20 somethings to the future of the country, but it seems to me the scale is off.  It's a country of 100MM+ with a third of those people being between 18 and 45.  Losing even a half million of them doesn't seem like it would really throw that much of a wrench in things.  It certainly didn't for us or them in WWII, for instance, at a much bigger death scale once you move out a few years. 

Have you not seen this chart?   WWII absolutely crushed them demographically as they lost a huge chunk of the breeding age population.  You can see the sine wave that has created for them over time.  That same dip/age group is now the 18-30 year olds where they need high birth rates (sustainability is 2.1 per couple).  I believe their last/recent rate was 1.6 and that was before having people bail on the country when the war started, when they are killed in the war and when they flee the country due to mobilization and soon to be martial law.

There is a reason Russia kidnapped close to 2 million Ukrainians including a massive number of kids (who likely still have parents or grandparents out there).

They could use immigration to help but no one wants to go there, and those that would want to emigrate are likely minorities and Russia does not want those...except to send to the Ukraine war.

 

[NorthLoop 14,195]

59 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Post WWII, we had a fertility rate in the high 3's if not low 4's, as did Russia. Their fertility rate now is in the low to mid 1's.  Eliminating 1/2million breeding age males is going to absolutely devastate their population 20 years from now.  

So I should encourage my son to learn Russian 

[Chad Fuck 17,672]

2 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

So I should encourage my son to learn Russian 

Nah.  It's my experience the Russian girls are pretty motivated to learn English. 

Ex. 1 - Girl upthread willing to give blowjob for plane ticket out of Russia.

[Trey3216 15,346]

2 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

So I should encourage my son to learn Russian 

Spread his seed far and wide in Russia.  

[Gengs1 2,583]

4 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

So I should encourage my son to learn Russian 

Nah you don’t want those crazy in your family 

[Orange&White 5,524]

1 minute ago, Gengs1 said:

Nah you don’t want those crazy in your family 

You don't have to marry them just because you fucked them.

[Laxtonto 12,080]

I am still  at a loss for trying to come up with a workable hypothesis on who benefits blowing up 2 inactive pipelines.

It really doesn’t benefit any of the players involved in all of this. Why would Russia blown up something that they already have turned off? Why would the US do it while knowing that Europe needs anything that goes through the pipeline and knowing that it would be an empty effort because the sanctions are effective already as is. Why would a European country do it knowing it would guarantee that they are going to have a fuel crisis this winter?

I can come up with a bunch of half baked false flag narratives, but I am at a loss for a solid logic stream of why one of the big players involved would be willing to do this… Need more info at this point to speculate I guess.

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

Kazakhstan reported 98,000.

[Gengs1 2,583]

3 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

You don't have to marry them just because you fucked them.

[jdhorn92 1,545]

1 minute ago, Laxtonto said:

I am still  at a loss for trying to come up with a workable hypothesis on who benefits blowing up 2 inactive pipelines.

It really doesn’t benefit any of the players involved in all of this. Why would Russia blown up something that they already have turned off? Why would the US do it while knowing that Europe needs anything that goes through the pipeline and knowing that it would be an empty effort because the sanctions are effective already as is. Why would a European country do it knowing it would guarantee that they are going to have a fuel crisis this winter?

I can come up with a bunch of half baked false flag narratives, but I am at a loss for a solid logic stream of why one of the big players involved would be willing to do this… Need more info at this point to speculate I guess.

Got to be the Russians.  They are selling plenty of gas to the Chicoms, Indians, Pakistanis of the world.  Blow the pipeline and the Euros have a cold winter, even if the war started to go their way, they would look good by saying something along the lines , "we'd love to help you , but you know, the pipeline your allies blew up is inop".

 

Scenario 2 is the war continues to go badly for the Russians, and thus , "well too bad, you should have not helped the UKes"

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

Post WWII, we had a fertility rate in the high 3's if not low 4's, as did Russia. Their fertility rate now is in the low to mid 1's.  Eliminating 1/2million breeding age males is going to absolutely devastate their population 20 years from now.  

It's not just the ones who die or who flee.  There are going to be hundreds of thousands who are maimed or so psychologically damaged that they don't have kids.  We saw that a lot after WWI--and I have every confidence that the Russian equivalent of the VA system is going to be on par with ours from the 1920s.

And as someone else brought up, don't sleep on the lack of immigration.  Russia was a huge destination for migrant workers from Central Asia.  That was doing a lot to keep their economy going--a ton of the O&G workers in Siberia were actually from Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan.  But they're not moving to Russia anymore.  And that's going to put another huge strain on Russian society/economy.

[Trey3216 15,346]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not just the ones who die or who flee.  There are going to be hundreds of thousands who are maimed or so psychologically damaged that they don't have kids.  We saw that a lot after WWI--and I have every confidence that the Russian equivalent of the VA system is going to be on par with ours from the 1920s.

And as someone else brought up, don't sleep on the lack of immigration.  Russia was a huge destination for migrant workers from Central Asia.  That was doing a lot to keep their economy going--a ton of the O&G workers in Siberia were actually from Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan.  But they're not moving to Russia anymore.  And that's going to put another huge strain on Russian society/economy.

No doubt, I was merely pointing out the most immediate and identifiable non-producers, the dead.   

[NorthLoop 14,195]

13 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

I am still  at a loss for trying to come up with a workable hypothesis on who benefits blowing up 2 inactive pipelines.

It really doesn’t benefit any of the players involved in all of this. Why would Russia blown up something that they already have turned off?

1. to be assholes

2. to be assholes and blame it on someone else 

3. they don't even know why, same as every other decision they've made during this whole thing. 

4. hold my vodka