Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[The Dog 44048]

 

[Rimbo 25932]

34 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We have been casually escalating this thing from the outset.

I wouldn't call what we're doing "escalation." We're increasing our support levels over time. But we're not directly involved, and most importantly, we're not leading the charge. Ukraine is in charge, and we're proving to be great allies to them in their time of need.

It's like... if your friend wanted to start their own business. You want your friend to succeed, but you also know that giving money to friends just because they're a friend is bad for both business and friendships. You spend some time helping them get set up, but then it happens: They lose their day job. Now this business has to succeed or fail on its own merit. And to everyone's surprise, that prep paid off.

So now you and a bunch of other friends put together an Angel round, so the business can keep going, with promises of more funds if they show they can do it.

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

So yeah, you're increasing your support, but you're not escalating. Because your friend is running their company, and they're the ones who make the decisions. Yeah, we're going to make scads of dough off their success, but it's still their enterprise, not ours.

[956 Worldwide 34714]

As we are talking about the particulars of this war, I want to pause for a second to appreciate the gravity of this moment in the historic sense. 77 years ago, the United States introduced the atomic bomb to the world. Since that moment, nuclear weapons have been de facto used as a defense. No nation possessing nuclear weapons has attempted to gain territory under threat of nuclear annihilation. Across tens of nasty proxy wars and crises, no nation has directly said that losing a proxy war would trigger nuclear use. 
 

As Russia prepares formal annexation and to declare these provinces “Russia” in the middle of a conflict, here is the new understanding of these world-ending weapons— a nation can declare part of another nation to be its own and then defend its ill-gotten gains with nuclear weapons. 
 

Whether this is allowed to happen or not will have profound implications for nuclear proliferation and for the global system that we can’t really understand even as it is happening.  

[TexasEd 8067]

1 hour ago, Catpfish said:

The Illinois Nazis are being mobilized?

 

 

See my avatar 

57 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I'd tell Belarus if they keep it up, we take the muzzle off Poland. The Poles would be in Minsk in 48 hrs. 

I’ll take the under 

[Rimbo 25932]

https://spacenews.com/china-seeks-new-partners-for-lunar-and-deep-space-exploration/

Russia trying to Find Out at level 10.

[immamac 42850]

6 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I wouldn't call what we're doing "escalation." We're increasing our support levels over time. But we're not directly involved, and most importantly, we're not leading the charge. Ukraine is in charge, and we're proving to be great allies to them in their time of need.

It's like... if your friend wanted to start their own business. You want your friend to succeed, but you also know that giving money to friends just because they're a friend is bad for both business and friendships. You spend some time helping them get set up, but then it happens: They lose their day job. Now this business has to succeed or fail on its own merit. And to everyone's surprise, that prep paid off.

So now you and a bunch of other friends put together an Angel round, so the business can keep going, with promises of more funds if they show they can do it.

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

So yeah, you're increasing your support, but you're not escalating. Because your friend is running their company, and they're the ones who make the decisions. Yeah, we're going to make scads of dough off their success, but it's still their enterprise, not ours.

Except that instead of being money guys we are supplying them with technology and software licenses as well, meanwhile we own all that tech and software so we stop selling it to their main competitors and penalize anyone who tries to work around that. Oh and we are also sending an army of trainers to train staff and new hires all while covering the implementation cost of the complex system that allows you to compete with the incumbents. Oh and we are also licensing, for free, some extremely advanced technology that the other competitors don’t have. 

After all that we are also getting every other partner or integration to actually stop using any of the competitors even if it’s bad for them. 
 

to say the US hasn’t escalated this is hilarious and wrong, but we still aren’t directly involved technically speaking. 

[TexasEd 8067]

I don’t see it as US escalation, it is the US and our allies responding to the actions that Russia has taken. They invade, we sanction and provide weapons and training. They bomb a shelter we provide anti aircraft systems. They shell houses, we provide HIMARS. 
 

We bring the Find Out to the Russian Fuck Around party.

Edited September 29, 2022 by TexasEd

[Laxtonto 12080]

29 minutes ago, immamac said:

Except that instead of being money guys we are supplying them with technology and software licenses as well, meanwhile we own all that tech and software so we stop selling it to their main competitors and penalize anyone who tries to work around that. Oh and we are also sending an army of trainers to train staff and new hires all while covering the implementation cost of the complex system that allows you to compete with the incumbents. Oh and we are also licensing, for free, some extremely advanced technology that the other competitors don’t have. 

After all that we are also getting every other partner or integration to actually stop using any of the competitors even if it’s bad for them. 
 

to say the US hasn’t escalated this is hilarious and wrong, but we still aren’t directly involved technically speaking. 

 

40 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I wouldn't call what we're doing "escalation." We're increasing our support levels over time. But we're not directly involved, and most importantly, we're not leading the charge. Ukraine is in charge, and we're proving to be great allies to them in their time of need.

It's like... if your friend wanted to start their own business. You want your friend to succeed, but you also know that giving money to friends just because they're a friend is bad for both business and friendships. You spend some time helping them get set up, but then it happens: They lose their day job. Now this business has to succeed or fail on its own merit. And to everyone's surprise, that prep paid off.

So now you and a bunch of other friends put together an Angel round, so the business can keep going, with promises of more funds if they show they can do it.

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

So yeah, you're increasing your support, but you're not escalating. Because your friend is running their company, and they're the ones who make the decisions. Yeah, we're going to make scads of dough off their success, but it's still their enterprise, not ours.

The problem is that any support in any form can at some level be viewed as an escalation from one side while the other views it as a counter to a previous escalation by the other side.

Outside of direct military assistance that is outlined either via treaty or blatantly disregarding international law, everything else is a varying shade of gray. So the real issue is not have X crossed the proverbial line and escalated the conflict, but instead what level of conflict are both sides willing to go and why are we doing it.
 

Yes, this is a war for freedom against an unjust invasion, foremost. But don’t delude ourselves that it isn’t also a proxy war to demonstrate us capabilities in a non-guerilla war style of engagement. This is a message to everyone regarding how much better our weapons and tactics really are in comparison to the Russian approach (cough cough here looking at you China). This is also a sales demo regarding the power of alliances with the west, the importance of the NATO nations staying current in the global arms tech race, and an open demonstration of the willingness to help other democracies.

We get sucked in to thinking things are only a single issue, when things like this are a multifaceted event full of things that that are out to help the greater good as well as things that may be more self centered or self serving.

 

You say potato I say HIMARS, but what is the difference?

Edited September 29, 2022 by Laxtonto
Fuck you autocorrect - thanks DDD

[956 Worldwide 34714]

Yeah, I cannot say the U.S. has escalated this. First, all our steps were calculated and proportional to serious Russian escalation. Second, the United States has not pursued revisionist aims but has only sought to return to the status quo ante. Finally, and most important, the stakes are completely asymmetrical.  A failure to increase support to Ukraine means Ukraine ceases to exist while “deescalating” gets us the same and also fractured Europe and our Alliance. Russia has always simply been able to return to its borders where it is secure.  
 

And this has been Putin’s biggest failure as a strategist.  He tried to bluff his way into making the West believe that Ukraine really is a core security interest and the struggle is existential.  He failed (though it was a good shot and many would have happily folded) because the idea is so clearly stupid.  
 

And this is why the annexation and mobilization are such hair-raising escalatory threats. Compare this nuclear blackmail to a game of chicken.  Clearly, with rational actors both cars swerve.  But what if you REALLY want to win? Well, you can throw the steering wheel out the window and make sure the other guy sees you do it. 
 

This is what Putin is trying to convince us he’s done with the annexations and it’s vital that we refuse to acknowledge it. 

[DDD Dad 14339]

7 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 

The problem is that any support in any form can at some level be viewed as an escalation from one side while the other views it as a counter to a previous escalation by the other side.

Outside of direct military assistance that is outlined either via treaty or blatantly disregarding international law, everything else is a varying shade of gray. So the real issue is not have X crossed the proverbial line and escalated the conflict, but instead what level of conflict are both sides willing to go and why are we doing it.
 

Yes, this is a war for freedom against an unjust invasion, foremost. But don’t delude ourselves that it isn’t also a proxy war to demonstrate us capabilities in a non-gorilla war style of engagement. This is a message to everyone regarding how much better our weapons and tactics really are in comparison to the Russian approach (cough cough here looking at you China). This is also a sales demo regarding the power of alliances with the west, the importance of the NATO nations staying current in the global arms tech race, and an open demonstration of the willingness to help other democracies.

We get sucked in to thinking things are only a single issue, when things like this are a multifaceted event full of things that that are out to help the greater good as well as things that may be more self centered or self serving.

 

You say potato I say HIMARS, but what is the difference?

Guerilla.

[CHIEF 5086]

The US and NATO will do whatever it takes to insure a Ukrainian victory. Putin and Russia have made direct threats about not stopping at Ukraine. All of the countries to the east are NATO countries. Russia has to be stopped in Ukraine at all costs to keep from triggering an Article 5 situation leading tp WWIII. I'm not sure if Putin is contemplating a tactical nuke. If it is detonated close enough to a NATO country to contaminate it with fallout, it triggers Article 5. If he detonates one in eastern Ukraine, he risks contaminating part of Russia itself.

CHIEF

Edited September 29, 2022 by CHIEF

[ABSR 5311]

28 minutes ago, immamac said:

Except that instead of being money guys we are supplying them with technology and software licenses as well, meanwhile we own all that tech and software so we stop selling it to their main competitors and penalize anyone who tries to work around that. Oh and we are also sending an army of trainers to train staff and new hires all while covering the implementation cost of the complex system that allows you to compete with the incumbents. Oh and we are also licensing, for free, some extremely advanced technology that the other competitors don’t have. 

After all that we are also getting every other partner or integration to actually stop using any of the competitors even if it’s bad for them. 
 

to say the US hasn’t escalated this is hilarious and wrong, but we still aren’t directly involved technically speaking. 

You all are stating this wrong.  The US has not escalated this.  The US has escalated our support as Ukraine continues to fight for their freedom from invaders. 

Russia intentionally invaded another country to conquer and annex it.   Ukraine has been fighting this.   None of this has "escalated" at all since the start.  

So US support has increased (or escalated), but the conflict itself which Russia started....and which Russia could stop by leaving, is the same war of Russian attempted conquest and subjugation of Ukraine.

Russia keeps trying to "escalate" the stakes by threatening Nuclear blackmail, but they have been making those threats since they were initially stopped and had to pull back from Kijev.  So the Russian doctrine of "Escalate to Deescalate" has been  something they continue to push regardless of the level of support from the US or others.

Edited September 29, 2022 by ABSR

[SquishMitten 10406]

16 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I don’t see it as US escalation, it is the US and our allies responding to the actions that Russia has taken. They invade, we sanction and provide weapons and training. They bomb a shelter we provide anti aircraft systems. They shell houses, we provide HIMARS. 
 

 

Fair point. Depends on how you define escalation. Is anything we do pure, unwarranted escalation? No. We respond to the opponent's escalation by coming up to their level (i.e., they go from 6 to 7, we got from 6 to 7. They go from 7 to 8, we go from 7 to 8. You can't deny that this meets some definition of "escalation of our level of involvement". But I can't argue with your point that we're not escalating unilaterally. 

[The Dog 44048]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52497]

18 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

in a non-gorilla war

C’mon now. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by Pato del Muerto
RIP Harambe

[Brisketexan 105135]

36 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 

The problem is that any support in any form can at some level be viewed as an escalation from one side while the other views it as a counter to a previous escalation by the other side.

Outside of direct military assistance that is outlined either via treaty or blatantly disregarding international law, everything else is a varying shade of gray. So the real issue is not have X crossed the proverbial line and escalated the conflict, but instead what level of conflict are both sides willing to go and why are we doing it.
 

Yes, this is a war for freedom against an unjust invasion, foremost. But don’t delude ourselves that it isn’t also a proxy war to demonstrate us capabilities in a non-guerilla war style of engagement. This is a message to everyone regarding how much better our weapons and tactics really are in comparison to the Russian approach (cough cough here looking at you China). This is also a sales demo regarding the power of alliances with the west, the importance of the NATO nations staying current in the global arms tech race, and an open demonstration of the willingness to help other democracies.

We get sucked in to thinking things are only a single issue, when things like this are a multifaceted event full of things that that are out to help the greater good as well as things that may be more self centered or self serving.

 

You say potato I say HIMARS, but what is the difference?

Setting aside the semantics about whether this is escalation, this is dead-on.

And for that additional reason, that's why the US has handled this masterfully thus far.  We have cemented our status as "the ally you really, really want to have."  I mean, we even have Finland and Sanna Marin salivating over us, and THAT'S a win any way you score it.  We have shown that there are two types of militaries in this world: The US military and those aligned with and backed by us, and "other."  And "other" gets blown the fuck up.

Among countries that matter, we have elevated our status, reliability, and desirability.  An we've made a similar impression on our rivals who matter.  All in the process of ALSO standing up for a sovereign nation fighting for its existence and the right of self-determination; you know, the values we have often SAID we stand for.  Let's get this one across the finish line.

Oh....and we will also get the benefit of largely neutering one of the world's biggest bad actors, Russia.  They are going to be ill-equipped to fuck with ANYONE else for another generation, at least.  I won't go CR here, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of how our leadership could be handling this situation any better.  I can think of LOTS of ways they could be handling it worse.

[Viper 12109]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

https://spacenews.com/china-seeks-new-partners-for-lunar-and-deep-space-exploration/

Russia trying to Find Out at level 10.

Putin should have watched this educational video before he started this 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

[Gravy Train 974]

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/09/28/honestly-they-re-all-going-to-die-there

Quote

If I’m being honest, they’re all going to die there. They'll be mutilated and killed. This isn’t a trained army! I, for example, served [as a contract soldier] for a long time, then chose to go [to the front in Ukraine] myself — and I still found myself unprepared. The very first day, I realized I had made the biggest mistake of my life.

When I decided to go to Ukraine, I was a staunch patriot. I believed there were Nazi formations of some kind there, like the Right Sector, the Aidar [Battalion], the Azov [Battalion]. Plus I’d watched a bunch of [Russian] films like Soltsepyok and Opolchenochka. Plus, all of the Telegram and TV channels were designed to pump [that stuff into] our brains.

But even while we were still being driven across the border in the Ural [truck], I realized that we were the occupiers, we were the fascists. I [...] was sitting in the truck bed, watching the scenes going by. What we were leaving behind. All of those destroyed villages in Kharkiv. I realized we were actually destroying a country. Along with its civilian population.

You’d go through a village and children would run out onto the road and gesture after you: either “smoke” or “eat.” I just couldn’t wrap my head around it. The world was upside down; I felt empty inside. You realize all of your life so far was fiction. A soap bubble.

We traveled like that to Izium [in the Kharkiv region]. I spent three days on the frontline — and got another wake-up call when our own artillery fired at us. Then those stupid commands began…

I’ve served more than a few times, and I can tell when I’m being sent in for slaughter. And I immediately told this guy with big epaulets to fuck off: “I’m not just a bargaining chip! I’m a soldier for the Russian army! You can’t just throw me under the bus like this!” To which he answered, “You’re all just cannon fodder. You’re the third group of people to form this battalion. Do you know where the first two groups died? And you’ll die here.” Then he told my commander, “Send in the meat." [Us.]

They were trying to advance, and they threw us at a Ukrainian stronghold, where tanks, artillery, and machine guns were all operating. And the Ukrainians had hundreds of troops, while we only had 40.

You wake up as one person, and by the evening, you’ve become someone else. You go through such intense metamorphoses that it scares you. It scares you how blind you were below. And deaf.

Quote

This is a scary time: 1922–1939 is starting all over again, 100 years later. And I really want to tell [the new conscripts] that they should all come back — however many there are — and turn towards Moscow.

Even when I’ve tried to explain things to people, they haven’t listened. Nobody believes words, you see? I was like that, too — and there was a time when people who had already been to Ukraine tried to talk me out of it. They called me right from the front lines and told me not to even think about it.

When I look at [the people being mobilized now], I see myself three months ago. But I don’t have any sympathy for them. If you have a choice, choose life! Sure, it might be life in prison; sure, the state will consider you a criminal — for you’ll know you’re not a criminal. You won’t kill anybody. You won’t shoot anybody.

We’re the fascists — really. We’re the fascists. There’s not another word for it. There really is a denazification happening in Ukraine right now — not for Ukraine, but for us.

Quote

These [newly drafted] IT guys and other cannon fodder — what are they going to do? They won’t change anything [at the front] and they won’t solve anything. A friend of mine had a son that served for a year — and he got a summons, too. He didn’t so much as smell gunpowder — he may have fired a weapon twice throughout his whole service. So what are they sending him for? What’s going to happen to him? I just don’t get it. I can’t wrap my head around it.

So why recruit these 300,000? I think there’s going to be a total standoff: NATO against Russia. I hope they don’t throw these conscripts to the front immediately and instead spend some time training them. So that there’s a reserve that’s ready for battle. And then [if there’s a direct confrontation with NATO] they’d be ready as soon as the command was given.

Everyone’s scared. I’m scared, too, to be honest. Something bad is coming at full force — I can sense it.

Quote

This [mobilization] is evidence that the army’s been defeated. And they’re conscripting anyone and everyone. A lot of people don’t understand, but that’s how it is: Russia’s professional army has been destroyed over the last six months — and now they’re conscripting the entire reserve.

I was a contract soldier myself — and [even] we were given inadequate training. The photo reports [of the training] are one thing — but the results [at the front] showed that it was all a Potemkin village.

Even we had huge losses. And now it’s just a crowd of people who were given a form. [...] What difference are they going to make [on the frontline]? They’re just going to die for nothing. These are just civilians who did their [mandatory] military service at some point.

Quote

I went [to Ukraine] in January — and it’s true: we all thought we were just going there for military exercises. [...] I saw how unprepared the Russian army was. We just kept moving forward, and they kept bombing us. Then we got to Kyiv, dug in, and they started bombing us again. That’s how the whole war has gone.

The civilians would run from us: we kept entering empty villages. The families who remained hung up white flags and stayed inside their houses. In Buzova [a village near Kyiv], I saw a family with a child who was in pain. His mother was crying — I saw it myself — and telling him she couldn’t call an ambulance. Because of the war. The child was in a lot of pain. [He was] five years old. And a few days later, I learned he had died. Which means he died because of us. Because we’d gone there.

 

[F250 28774]

34 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Is the Wagner Group notorious? I'm thinking it should be phrased as the disreputable Wagner Group.

[SquishMitten 10406]

Notorious is a more accurate word than disreputable, if going by the actual definition of the word

[Schulz2.0 28951]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

Is the Wagner Group notorious? I'm thinking it should be phrased as the disreputable Wagner Group.

They had a more detailed description but couldn't afford it.

[Brisketexan 105135]

5 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Notorious is a more accurate word than disreputable, if going by the actual definition of the word

If we're getting super-accurate and all.

[bolverk 29672]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Setting aside the semantics about whether this is escalation, this is dead-on.

And for that additional reason, that's why the US has handled this masterfully thus far.  We have cemented our status as "the ally you really, really want to have."  I mean, we even have Finland and Sanna Marin salivating over us, and THAT'S a win any way you score it.  We have shown that there are two types of militaries in this world: The US military and those aligned with and backed by us, and "other."  And "other" gets blown the fuck up.

Among countries that matter, we have elevated our status, reliability, and desirability.  An we've made a similar impression on our rivals who matter.  All in the process of ALSO standing up for a sovereign nation fighting for its existence and the right of self-determination; you know, the values we have often SAID we stand for.  Let's get this one across the finish line.

Oh....and we will also get the benefit of largely neutering one of the world's biggest bad actors, Russia.  They are going to be ill-equipped to fuck with ANYONE else for another generation, at least.  I won't go CR here, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of how our leadership could be handling this situation any better.  I can think of LOTS of ways they could be handling it worse.

 

"The reports of the West's death were greatly exaggerated." ~ Javelin Himars

[Brisketexan 105135]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

"The reports of the West's death were greatly exaggerated." ~ Javelin Himars

That's gold.   Gonna steal it without attribution.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

[bolverk 29672]

35 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/09/28/honestly-they-re-all-going-to-die-there

 

Dude fucked around and found out. But even after realizing he's fighting for the fascists, he's not necessarily calling for an end to the war but for the cannon fodder to get better training for a fight with NATO. Thanks for posting. Interesting insight.

Also, folks shouldn't overlook that link to the Russian propaganda film he mentioned:

https://theconversation.com/how-solntsepyok-a-brutal-2021-propaganda-film-primed-russians-for-war-with-ukraine-185701

[Chad Fuck 17681]

In all seriousness, I think this all ends with Russia de-nuked. Putin goes down, breakaway republics/regions gain independence, the west only removes sanctions after denuclearization, and post-Putin leadership has no choice but to agree.

This is the play. Two teams should be ready to go. The teams to buy the nukes and if necessary the teams to take the nukes.

[The Dog 44048]

 

[Trey3216 15346]

3 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I'd tell Belarus if they keep it up, we take the muzzle off Poland. The Poles would be in Minsk in 4.8 hrs. 

You missed a decimal.  

[KYHorn 17050]

11 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

 

 Just a daily reminder of why we're so committed to ending Putin's reign.

[Kwix 2186]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

Putin should have watched this educational video before he started this 

 

 

 

[Trey3216 15346]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yeah, I cannot say the U.S. has escalated this. First, all our steps were calculated and proportional to serious Russian escalation. Second, the United States has not pursued revisionist aims but has only sought to return to the status quo ante. Finally, and most important, the stakes are completely asymmetrical.  A failure to increase support to Ukraine means Ukraine ceases to exist while “deescalating” gets us the same and also fractured Europe and our Alliance. Russia has always simply been able to return to its borders where it is secure.  
 

And this has been Putin’s biggest failure as a strategist.  He tried to bluff his way into making the West believe that Ukraine really is a core security interest and the struggle is existential.  He failed (though it was a good shot and many would have happily folded) because the idea is so clearly stupid.  
 

And this is why the annexation and mobilization are such hair-raising escalatory threats. Compare this nuclear blackmail to a game of chicken.  Clearly, with rational actors both cars swerve.  But what if you REALLY want to win? Well, you can throw the steering wheel out the window and make sure the other guy sees you do it. 
 

This is what Putin is trying to convince us he’s done with the annexations and it’s vital that we refuse to acknowledge it. 

We've basically answered a non-queen's gambit opening with a queen's gambit follow.  We didn't escalate, but we certainly utilized second-mover advantage by force.  

[KYHorn 17050]

 

 

 

[Saint Tacky 1614]

1 hour ago, CHIEF said:

I'm not sure if Putin is contemplating a tactical nuke.

The Russian "experts" believe use of a tactical nuke is becoming more likely.

Julia Ioffe on "Stay Tuned" beginning @ 33:00

[Ghost of LL 15531]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

As we are talking about the particulars of this war, I want to pause for a second to appreciate the gravity of this moment in the historic sense. 77 years ago, the United States introduced the atomic bomb to the world. Since that moment, nuclear weapons have been de facto used as a defense. No nation possessing nuclear weapons has attempted to gain territory under threat of nuclear annihilation. Across tens of nasty proxy wars and crises, no nation has directly said that losing a proxy war would trigger nuclear use. 
 

As Russia prepares formal annexation and to declare these provinces “Russia” in the middle of a conflict, here is the new understanding of these world-ending weapons— a nation can declare part of another nation to be its own and then defend its ill-gotten gains with nuclear weapons. 
 

Whether this is allowed to happen or not will have profound implications for nuclear proliferation and for the global system that we can’t really understand even as it is happening.  

I agree with this entirely.  It is an extremely dangerous paradigm shift, and we need to stop it in its tracks.  What we're doing now is fine, but we need to signal very clearly to Russia (and to the world) that we are going to do whatever it takes to eject Russia from Ukrainian territory.  We're not going to allow nuclear weapons to be used as the ultimate leverage by an aggressor.

We also need to state very clearly that a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation is contrary to the national security interests of the United States and will be regarded as an act of war against them.  And, frankly, that needs to be an organized statement on behalf of all of NATO.

2 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

Yes, this is a war for freedom against an unjust invasion, foremost. But don’t delude ourselves that it isn’t also a proxy war to demonstrate us capabilities in a non-guerilla war style of engagement. This is a message to everyone regarding how much better our weapons and tactics really are in comparison to the Russian approach (cough cough here looking at you China). This is also a sales demo regarding the power of alliances with the west, the importance of the NATO nations staying current in the global arms tech race, and an open demonstration of the willingness to help other democracies.

We get sucked in to thinking things are only a single issue, when things like this are a multifaceted event full of things that that are out to help the greater good as well as things that may be more self centered or self serving.

 

You say potato I say HIMARS, but what is the difference?

Yeah--we've got a lot of interests at stake here.  And this war is working out very well for us so far.  We just need to make sure not to blow it.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Setting aside the semantics about whether this is escalation, this is dead-on.

And for that additional reason, that's why the US has handled this masterfully thus far.  We have cemented our status as "the ally you really, really want to have."  I mean, we even have Finland and Sanna Marin salivating over us, and THAT'S a win any way you score it.  We have shown that there are two types of militaries in this world: The US military and those aligned with and backed by us, and "other."  And "other" gets blown the fuck up.

Among countries that matter, we have elevated our status, reliability, and desirability.  An we've made a similar impression on our rivals who matter.  All in the process of ALSO standing up for a sovereign nation fighting for its existence and the right of self-determination; you know, the values we have often SAID we stand for.  Let's get this one across the finish line.

Oh....and we will also get the benefit of largely neutering one of the world's biggest bad actors, Russia.  They are going to be ill-equipped to fuck with ANYONE else for another generation, at least.  I won't go CR here, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of how our leadership could be handling this situation any better.  I can think of LOTS of ways they could be handling it worse.

No doubt.  It's really hard to find fault with how the United States has handled this.  And really, it has gone a long way to absolving the United States of their manifold sins over the past 20 years.

We knew what Putin was going to do before his own commanders.  We told the world.  A lot of the world didn't want to believe us.  But damned if we weren't dead-on balls accurate.  And now does anybody even remember the whole "Iraq has WMD" debacle?  No.  All anybody knows now is that American intelligence is the gold standard.

We can send over materiel that is a full generation ahead of anything Russia is rolling out there, and we're still not even sending over the good stuff.  Nor are we even doing anything to really ramp up our production; we're sending shit out of our stockpiles.  A hot minute ago, people were wondering about China's and Russia's hypersonic missiles and their cyber-warfare capabilities.  Is anybody worried about that now?  No.  We are demonstrating once again that the United States remains the greatest industrial power on Earth, and it's not even really close.

And we're training the Ukrainians and giving them the benefit of our AI-enabled wargaming strategies.  Yeah--shit went south in Afghanistan.  People started thinking that the United States was no longer capable of projecting power.  Does anybody think that now?  No.  Our allies now know that there is only one power in the world that is capable of fighting off any potential adversary.  Our enemies know that, too.  It's why we're gaining new allies, and why our enemies are putting their heads down.

At the risk of making a nod to the CR, Joe Biden isn't getting a lot of credit for this.  But his administration's handling of this is overcoming all of the various fuck-ups of the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.  And that was a pretty tall motherfucking order.

[Hefeweizen 5321]

Well the use of a nuke would change the war. Probably freeze the lines for a time.  But Russia will have signed its death warrant, which may not be the deterrent it would to a rational actor.  
 

I think China has been trying to figure out an off-ramp from Russia and that would be an easy one.  Then they can March into Siberia.

 

 The losers would be Ukraine.  Gone from heroic defenders to senseless casualties in a very quick moment.  Because if they use one, they may use 20 or 25.

[jdhorn92 1549]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I agree with this entirely.  It is an extremely dangerous paradigm shift, and we need to stop it in its tracks.  What we're doing now is fine, but we need to signal very clearly to Russia (and to the world) that we are going to do whatever it takes to eject Russia from Ukrainian territory.  We're not going to allow nuclear weapons to be used as the ultimate leverage by an aggressor.

We also need to state very clearly that a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation is contrary to the national security interests of the United States and will be regarded as an act of war against them.  And, frankly, that needs to be an organized statement on behalf of all of NATO.

Yeah--we've got a lot of interests at stake here.  And this war is working out very well for us so far.  We just need to make sure not to blow it.

No doubt.  It's really hard to find fault with how the United States has handled this.  And really, it has gone a long way to absolving the United States of their manifold sins over the past 20 years.

We knew what Putin was going to do before his own commanders.  We told the world.  A lot of the world didn't want to believe us.  But damned if we weren't dead-on balls accurate.  And now does anybody even remember the whole "Iraq has WMD" debacle?  No.  All anybody knows now is that American intelligence is the gold standard.

We can send over materiel that is a full generation ahead of anything Russia is rolling out there, and we're still not even sending over the good stuff.  Nor are we even doing anything to really ramp up our production; we're sending shit out of our stockpiles.  A hot minute ago, people were wondering about China's and Russia's hypersonic missiles and their cyber-warfare capabilities.  Is anybody worried about that now?  No.  We are demonstrating once again that the United States remains the greatest industrial power on Earth, and it's not even really close.

And we're training the Ukrainians and giving them the benefit of our AI-enabled wargaming strategies.  Yeah--shit went south in Afghanistan.  People started thinking that the United States was no longer capable of projecting power.  Does anybody think that now?  No.  Our allies now know that there is only one power in the world that is capable of fighting off any potential adversary.  Our enemies know that, too.  It's why we're gaining new allies, and why our enemies are putting their heads down.

At the risk of making a nod to the CR, Joe Biden isn't getting a lot of credit for this.  But his administration's handling of this is overcoming all of the various fuck-ups of the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.  And that was a pretty tall motherfucking order.

I agree with all of that.  The note I would add is I dont think the Afghan conflict went south for us. Losing one soul over there was too many, but 1,900 US service members in 20 years to hostile action is a lot lower than many thought going in, considering we were in a guerilla war. Gulf War 1, going over the burm, a buddy told me he was told "1 of 2", meaning when they went in, the CO's were told to expect 50% casualty rate going in initially.  Fast forward to Afghan, and we performed exceptionally well IMO. The exit was messy, that may be what you meant, if so , i agree,  but really there were few options w/o going all CR.  We wrecked shop on ISIS and the Taliban, something the RU army never could accomplish.  Our boys over there were nails all things considered.  Those people dont want peace, its not in their DNA.

[Rimbo 25932]

57 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Notorious is a more accurate word than disreputable, if going by the actual definition of the word

it's also a really unsuccessful Duran Duran album

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

25 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

We've basically answered a non-queen's gambit opening with a queen's gambit follow.  We didn't escalate, but we certainly utilized second-mover advantage by force.  

got damnt, take it to the cheating chess butt plug thread.

[Pato del Muerto 52497]

18 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Well the use of a nuke would change the war. Probably freeze the lines for a time.  But Russia will have signed its death warrant, which may not be the deterrent it would to a rational actor.  
 

I think China has been trying to figure out an off-ramp from Russia and that would be an easy one.  Then they can March into Siberia.

 

 The losers would be Ukraine.  Gone from heroic defenders to senseless casualties in a very quick moment.  Because if they use one, they may use 20 or 25.

You can easily walk the nukes up to this

 

because if russia uses one or several tactical low payload nukes and doesn’t get the response it seeks, it will just escalate further with larger ones and in more radical locations. 

[Trey3216 15346]

21 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

I agree with all of that.  The note I would add is I dont think the Afghan conflict went south for us. Losing one soul over there was too many, but 1,900 US service members in 20 years to hostile action is a lot lower than many thought going in, considering we were in a guerilla war. Gulf War 1, going over the burm, a buddy told me he was told "1 of 2", meaning when they went in, the CO's were told to expect 50% casualty rate going in initially.  Fast forward to Afghan, and we performed exceptionally well IMO. The exit was messy, that may be what you meant, if so , i agree,  but really there were few options w/o going all CR.  We wrecked shop on ISIS and the Taliban, something the RU army never could accomplish.  Our boys over there were nails all things considered.  Those people dont want peace, its not in their DNA.

Well said.  It annoys me to no end when people say "we lost in Afghanistan".  We didn't lose shit, other than the will to do what Russia is doing to Ukrainian civilians, which I wholeheartedly am happy we don't pursue any longer.  (and a couple hunnert billion of left platform equipment, which also pissed me off)

9 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

got damnt, take it to the cheating chess butt plug thread.

THey opened with Slav defense and we countered with Queen's gambit.  It's usually reverse.  In this case, it's not surprising.  

Edited September 29, 2022 by Trey3216
Edited because We also lost a bunch of equipment that needn't be lost.

[Trey3216 15346]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

it's also a really unsuccessful Duran Duran album

And a phenomenally successful Biggie track.   

[The Dog 44048]

 

[atomheartbevo 89662]

5 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

If not, they are in essence planning on trying to open up a new front with green conscripts and all it would do is put Belarus at risk of an overthrow if that group gets smashed. The real question is there are enough other troops in western Ukraine to pivot over as a blocking force early and if Belarus engages in the war what does that mean as far what the UKA is allowed to do as far as advancing into Belarus. Any form of incursion into Belrus would make Lukashenko in serious threat of a revolt.

I’m not worried about Belarus.  Russia can’t put any manned air support in the air over the approaches to Kyiv from Belarus, and Russia doesn’t have the wheeled logistics to do so either - they are struggling to keep their arty supplied in the eastern areas and Crimea.  As others have said, this is about freeing up “professional”/contract soldiers to go reinforce the struggling positions elsewhere.

And if Russia tried to build up in Belarus, then Kyiv makes a show at building up and going for Crimea, which Putin 100% cannot afford to lose.  Putin is a gambler, but he’s also scared shitless of COVID and assassinations.

[Rimbo 25932]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-27/russia-ukraine-post-war-planning/101473304

Fella Mick Ryan article for ABC News (Australia).

[atomheartbevo 89662]

By the way, anybody skipping page 863 needs to go back and read the longer posts - that page was fucking awesome.

[atomheartbevo 89662]

3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

And so on. We're now at the point where the operation is really going strong, they just stole a ton of business from the same company that fired them earlier, and the competition is dumping product just to try to do ANYTHING to keep your friend from breaking through. At this point, you know they still need funding -- more than ever before, actually -- but you also have every expectation to make huge multiples of that money back on the IPO.

And don’t forget, the competitor is seeing a huge chunk of their workforce head for the exits because they want nothing to do with that shitshow.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

 

[DDD Dad 14339]

51 minutes ago, jdhorn92 said:

I agree with all of that.  The note I would add is I dont think the Afghan conflict went south for us. Losing one soul over there was too many, but 1,900 US service members in 20 years to hostile action is a lot lower than many thought going in, considering we were in a guerilla war. Gulf War 1, going over the berm burm, a buddy told me he was told "1 of 2", meaning when they went in, the CO's were told to expect 50% casualty rate going in initially.  Fast forward to Afghan, and we performed exceptionally well IMO. The exit was messy, that may be what you meant, if so , i agree,  but really there were few options w/o going all CR.  We wrecked shop on ISIS and the Taliban, something the RU army never could accomplish.  Our boys over there were nails all things considered.  Those people dont want peace, its not in their DNA.

I believe the correct term is "gorilla war."

 

RIP Harambe