Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[atomheartbevo 90703]

26 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Russian training going great ! 

“They shot you down, yeah”

”No”

 

[atomheartbevo 90703]

Either the emperor has no clothes, or they don’t want the West/Ukraine knowing how bad Russia is doing in general, or maybe the sanctions are hitting them all over the place, or a combination of the above.  This is where all of that corruption really kicked in.  Order 100,000 winter coats, make a thousand, but have the boxes for 100,000 in a warehouse, with the thousand coats in the boxes that would be easily accessible to some fat-ass general (who is also corrupt and/or being bribed) who goes through the motions, opens up  a carefully planted box that is full and then moves on to the next thing on his checklist.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[BearSchlong 8263]

The Russian army may be more pathetic than the aggy Corp turds.

Except my aggy corps turd son was actually in Poland for 5 months, handing out NATO weapons to Ukraine, so be careful with that broad paintbrush.

[MissingInAction 25621]

2 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

Except my aggy corps turd son was actually in Poland for 5 months, handing out NATO weapons to Ukraine, so be careful with that broad paintbrush.

Kudos to your boy, and thanks.

[atomheartbevo 90703]

I’m going to assume all intercepted calls between Russian sons and their moms are some form of this from now on: NSFW

 

[tx 3 putt 78848]

back at it ...

 

[Captainant 28620]

Some crazy footage coming out - up close KH-55 intercept:

https://v.redd.it/jcym6qf8iiu91

Gotta love seeing an irreplaceable $13M missile get taken off the board

Edited October 18, 2022 by Captainant

[Macanudo 13359]

7 hours ago, BearSchlong said:

Except my aggy corps turd son was actually in Poland for 5 months, handing out NATO weapons to Ukraine, so be careful with that broad paintbrush.

But your son's experience as a corp turd was in some ways examples of what not to do.

[Goredho 17663]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Motherfuckers are scared of Peppa Pig because a polar bear has two moms?

And South Park for making fun of pedophiles?

 

Russia has sealed her fate…

[Eskimohorn 5683]

Except my aggy corps turd son was actually in Poland for 5 months, handing out NATO weapons to Ukraine, so be careful with that broad paintbrush.

He said “may be more pathetic” and that’s a correct statement.

[Chad Fuck 18176]

This general who was a war criminal in Syria is apparently a war criminal in Ukraine. Surprise surprise. These strikes on civilian infrastructure are abhorrent but in concerned they’re going to be effective and cause widespread misery.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

This general who was a war criminal in Syria is apparently a war criminal in Ukraine. Surprise surprise. These strikes on civilian infrastructure are abhorrent but in concerned they’re going to be effective and cause widespread misery.

They’re going to have the opposite of their intended effect. The Ukrainian spirit can’t be defeated.

[Bevo 13939]

I guess Ukraine has to restrain itself. Hard not to start doing the same thing to Moscow, though.

[Chad Fuck 18176]

They’re going to have the opposite of their intended effect. The Ukrainian spirit can’t be defeated.

I agree about the ultimate outcome. I continue to be concerned about pensioners and kids suffering through the oncoming winter without basic services.

This whole thing sucks giant donkey balls.

[Chad Fuck 18176]

I guess Ukraine has to restrain itself. Hard not to start doing the same thing to Moscow, though.

It’s what I want them to do. But I know it’s what Moscow wants them to do too.

I guess we will have to be satisfied with random fires and shit in Belgorod blowing up.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I agree about the ultimate outcome. I continue to be concerned about pensioners and kids suffering through the oncoming winter without basic services.

This whole thing sucks giant donkey balls.

Agreed. Part of me hopes this thing goes article 5 so we can end it in 48 hours.

[atomheartbevo 90703]

10 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I guess Ukraine has to restrain itself. Hard not to start doing the same thing to Moscow, though.

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

It’s what I want them to do. But I know it’s what Moscow wants them to do too.

I guess we will have to be satisfied with random fires and shit in Belgorod blowing up.

A part of me really wonders what would happen if Ukraine slammed some cruise missiles and drones into Moscow (preferably the Kremlin). I know what Putin might do, but I’m talking about the Russian civilians.

On the one hand, everybody would say “oh the Russians will suddenly find their spirit and will to fight”

But on the other hand, they’ve had Russian government officials on TV telling them everything is going according to plan for nearly 8 months now, of the 3-day operation, and they had their flagship sunk, and the Kerch bridge bombed, and then they just went through a fucking mobilization, which Putin had promised wouldn’t happen, and a mobilization that saw random men being stopped and forcibly mobilized in Moscow for no reason, and TV pundits are asking why Russian soldiers don’t have helmets and body armor and food, and now dead Russians are coming back who were mobilized at the end of September, and were killed less than two weeks later.

There would have to be a sizable number of Russians going “WHAT IN THE EVER LIVING FUCK IS GOING ON?”

There would have to be a bunch of Russians saying “you told us this was a short, special military operation against a bunch of pig farmers, and it’s October, and you are stealing our men off the streets and Ukraine is hitting our Capitol with cruise missiles?”

[Foosters 18287]

11 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Motherfuckers are scared of Peppa Pig because a polar bear has two moms?

And South Park for making fun of pedophiles?

 

Are we certain that's not a school board meeting here in America?

[Bevo 13939]

32 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A part of me really wonders what would happen if Ukraine slammed some cruise missiles and drones into Moscow (preferably the Kremlin). I know what Putin might do, but I’m talking about the Russian civilians.

On the one hand, everybody would say “oh the Russians will suddenly find their spirit and will to fight”

But on the other hand, they’ve had Russian government officials on TV telling them everything is going according to plan for nearly 8 months now, of the 3-day operation, and they had their flagship sunk, and the Kerch bridge bombed, and then they just went through a fucking mobilization, which Putin had promised wouldn’t happen, and a mobilization that saw random men being stopped and forcibly mobilized in Moscow for no reason, and TV pundits are asking why Russian soldiers don’t have helmets and body armor and food, and now dead Russians are coming back who were mobilized at the end of September, and were killed less than two weeks later.

There would have to be a sizable number of Russians going “WHAT IN THE EVER LIVING FUCK IS GOING ON?”

There would have to be a bunch of Russians saying “you told us this was a short, special military operation against a bunch of pig farmers, and it’s October, and you are stealing our men off the streets and Ukraine is hitting our Capitol with cruise missiles?”

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. But, I would assume Putin would escalate and use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. At some point, though, Ukraine is going to demand the return of its children and if Putin is still in power, he will need some convincing.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Bevo

[texasdago 7773]

34 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Are we certain that's not a school board meeting here in America?

[Post Oak 20595]

35 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Are we certain that's not a school board meeting here in America?

Too close to home man.  Way too close.

[Pescado_Rojo 19593]

5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. But, I would assume Putin would escalate and use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. At some point, though, Ukraine is going to demand the return of its children and if Putin is still in power, he will need some convincing.

This. Don't give him an excuse to escalate. I think it's time to start hitting RU logistics and military targets on the Russian side of the border (Rail lines, overpasses, bridges, troop concentrations, etc.) but hitting civilian targets in Moscow or St Petersburg would give him cover to use a tactical nuke. 

[Ghost of LL 15730]

7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. But, I would assume Putin would escalate and use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation. At some point, though, Ukraine is going to demand the return of its children and if Putin is still in power, he will need some convincing.

Honestly, one of y'all with military/political/diplomatic/NAFO insight needs to explain to me just how this thing ends.  Because I don't see it.

Right now, you've got two combatants who are locked in a death grip with one another.  This isn't anything like Afghanistan, where the Russians could just decide they'd had enough, cross a bridge, and be done with it.  Even if Russia were to evacuate all of the occupied territories, they've kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian citizens.  And I just don't see the Ukrainians not pursuing that militarily.

Because, let's be honest--if Russia were to evacuate the occupied territories (and I think we all agree that Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting until that happens, including the Crimea, right?), that would probably mean that the Russian military is so badly degraded that it can't defend Russian territory.  By that point, the road to Moscow might be open, allowing significant Ukrainian advances into Russia itself.  But of course, that really does raise the prospect of nuclear-weapon use.

So neither of these sides can stop fighting unilaterally.  And there's really no available political solution that could result in an agreed cessation of the fighting.  So I really don't see how this turns into anything other than a very long war.

And to a very large degree, I think that suits us just fine.

The way the United States has been dispensing aid, it's pretty clear that the primary goal is to degrade the Russian military.  Ensuring Ukrainian victory is a goal, but it is decidedly a secondary goal.  If that were the primary goal, we'd be giving them the good stuff--Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, F-16s--and the Ukrainians would be able to eject the Russians from Ukrainian territory in a couple months.  But we're not doing that.  Instead, we're giving them just enough of the right kind of weapons to make sure that they kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian equipment without really having the ability to redeem all of their territory.

And from a purely cynical standpoint, I think that makes a lot of sense.  We don't owe Ukraine anything.  And Ukraine shouldn't expect anything to come from the goodness of our hearts.  What we've got going on right now is an exchange of goods for services.  We give them goods, and they give us the service of killing as many Russians as possible.  

And that's an important service, because it means that Russia can't meaningfully threaten a NATO ally for at least the next decade.  And because an attack on a NATO ally would have to be met with American military force, that saves American lives.

 

 

So . . . TLDR: Buckle up--this is a multi-year war that is going to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.  But in reality, that's a feature, not a bug.  That long-term war of attrition degrades Russia and thereby makes America safer.

[Bevo 13939]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honestly, one of y'all with military/political/diplomatic/NAFO insight needs to explain to me just how this thing ends.  Because I don't see it.

Right now, you've got two combatants who are locked in a death grip with one another.  This isn't anything like Afghanistan, where the Russians could just decide they'd had enough, cross a bridge, and be done with it.  Even if Russia were to evacuate all of the occupied territories, they've kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian citizens.  And I just don't see the Ukrainians not pursuing that militarily.

Because, let's be honest--if Russia were to evacuate the occupied territories (and I think we all agree that Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting until that happens, including the Crimea, right?), that would probably mean that the Russian military is so badly degraded that it can't defend Russian territory.  By that point, the road to Moscow might be open, allowing significant Ukrainian advances into Russia itself.  But of course, that really does raise the prospect of nuclear-weapon use.

So neither of these sides can stop fighting unilaterally.  And there's really no available political solution that could result in an agreed cessation of the fighting.  So I really don't see how this turns into anything other than a very long war.

And to a very large degree, I think that suits us just fine.

The way the United States has been dispensing aid, it's pretty clear that the primary goal is to degrade the Russian military.  Ensuring Ukrainian victory is a goal, but it is decidedly a secondary goal.  If that were the primary goal, we'd be giving them the good stuff--Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, F-16s--and the Ukrainians would be able to eject the Russians from Ukrainian territory in a couple months.  But we're not doing that.  Instead, we're giving them just enough of the right kind of weapons to make sure that they kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian equipment without really having the ability to redeem all of their territory.

And from a purely cynical standpoint, I think that makes a lot of sense.  We don't owe Ukraine anything.  And Ukraine shouldn't expect anything to come from the goodness of our hearts.  What we've got going on right now is an exchange of goods for services.  We give them goods, and they give us the service of killing as many Russians as possible.  

And that's an important service, because it means that Russia can't meaningfully threaten a NATO ally for at least the next decade.  And because an attack on a NATO ally would have to be met with American military force, that saves American lives.

 

 

So . . . TLDR: Buckle up--this is a multi-year war that is going to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.  But in reality, that's a feature, not a bug.  That long-term war of attrition degrades Russia and thereby makes America safer.

Just to add to the cynicism, at some point a US politician is going to need the polling boost of a Ukranian victory. Then, more advanced weapons will begin appearing in Ukraine. Right now, degrading Russia's military is the primary objective. And the goal is to achieve that objective without leading to Russia using tactical nukes. Tactical nukes would be bad for US leader polling.

[Parliament 14641]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honestly, one of y'all with military/political/diplomatic/NAFO insight needs to explain to me just how this thing ends.  Because I don't see it.

Right now, you've got two combatants who are locked in a death grip with one another.  This isn't anything like Afghanistan, where the Russians could just decide they'd had enough, cross a bridge, and be done with it.  Even if Russia were to evacuate all of the occupied territories, they've kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian citizens.  And I just don't see the Ukrainians not pursuing that militarily.

Because, let's be honest--if Russia were to evacuate the occupied territories (and I think we all agree that Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting until that happens, including the Crimea, right?), that would probably mean that the Russian military is so badly degraded that it can't defend Russian territory.  By that point, the road to Moscow might be open, allowing significant Ukrainian advances into Russia itself.  But of course, that really does raise the prospect of nuclear-weapon use.

So neither of these sides can stop fighting unilaterally.  And there's really no available political solution that could result in an agreed cessation of the fighting.  So I really don't see how this turns into anything other than a very long war.

And to a very large degree, I think that suits us just fine.

The way the United States has been dispensing aid, it's pretty clear that the primary goal is to degrade the Russian military.  Ensuring Ukrainian victory is a goal, but it is decidedly a secondary goal.  If that were the primary goal, we'd be giving them the good stuff--Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, F-16s--and the Ukrainians would be able to eject the Russians from Ukrainian territory in a couple months.  But we're not doing that.  Instead, we're giving them just enough of the right kind of weapons to make sure that they kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian equipment without really having the ability to redeem all of their territory.

And from a purely cynical standpoint, I think that makes a lot of sense.  We don't owe Ukraine anything.  And Ukraine shouldn't expect anything to come from the goodness of our hearts.  What we've got going on right now is an exchange of goods for services.  We give them goods, and they give us the service of killing as many Russians as possible.  

And that's an important service, because it means that Russia can't meaningfully threaten a NATO ally for at least the next decade.  And because an attack on a NATO ally would have to be met with American military force, that saves American lives.

 

 

So . . . TLDR: Buckle up--this is a multi-year war that is going to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.  But in reality, that's a feature, not a bug.  That long-term war of attrition degrades Russia and thereby makes America safer.

Interesting take.  And a note for all the other posters.  To put someone on "ignore" hover your mouse over "Ghost of LL" and wait a second.  You'll see a popup that gives you the option to ignore their posts.

[Chad Fuck 18176]

Honestly, one of y'all with military/political/diplomatic/NAFO insight needs to explain to me just how this thing ends.  Because I don't see it.
Right now, you've got two combatants who are locked in a death grip with one another.  This isn't anything like Afghanistan, where the Russians could just decide they'd had enough, cross a bridge, and be done with it.  Even if Russia were to evacuate all of the occupied territories, they've kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian citizens.  And I just don't see the Ukrainians not pursuing that militarily.
Because, let's be honest--if Russia were to evacuate the occupied territories (and I think we all agree that Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting until that happens, including the Crimea, right?), that would probably mean that the Russian military is so badly degraded that it can't defend Russian territory.  By that point, the road to Moscow might be open, allowing significant Ukrainian advances into Russia itself.  But of course, that really does raise the prospect of nuclear-weapon use.
So neither of these sides can stop fighting unilaterally.  And there's really no available political solution that could result in an agreed cessation of the fighting.  So I really don't see how this turns into anything other than a very long war.
And to a very large degree, I think that suits us just fine.
The way the United States has been dispensing aid, it's pretty clear that the primary goal is to degrade the Russian military.  Ensuring Ukrainian victory is a goal, but it is decidedly a secondary goal.  If that were the primary goal, we'd be giving them the good stuff--Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, F-16s--and the Ukrainians would be able to eject the Russians from Ukrainian territory in a couple months.  But we're not doing that.  Instead, we're giving them just enough of the right kind of weapons to make sure that they kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian equipment without really having the ability to redeem all of their territory.
And from a purely cynical standpoint, I think that makes a lot of sense.  We don't owe Ukraine anything.  And Ukraine shouldn't expect anything to come from the goodness of our hearts.  What we've got going on right now is an exchange of goods for services.  We give them goods, and they give us the service of killing as many Russians as possible.  
And that's an important service, because it means that Russia can't meaningfully threaten a NATO ally for at least the next decade.  And because an attack on a NATO ally would have to be met with American military force, that saves American lives.
 
 
So . . . TLDR: Buckle up--this is a multi-year war that is going to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.  But in reality, that's a feature, not a bug.  That long-term war of attrition degrades Russia and thereby makes America safer.

I agree with this mostly. The flaw I see is that we (I) don’t really have a handle on how many Ukrainians of fighting age there are and what the casualty rates are. I know why I don’t. And that’s fine, the Ukes need to hold that card close to their chest.

But without knowing that, it’s hard to say how long this will last and what form it will take beyond pushing the Russians out of Ukrainian territory.

Unless there’s a regime change and the following regime wants to prove its good will by repatriation of the kidnapped Ukrainians, I have to wonder if they’ll ever return. The prospect seems pretty bleak. I mean, we stole kids from immigrants and we like to think we are a pretty together outfit, but I’m sure some of those kids will never get back to where they came from or their parents. Russian record keeping? Color me skeptical.

[immamac 44431]

40 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honestly, one of y'all with military/political/diplomatic/NAFO insight needs to explain to me just how this thing ends.  Because I don't see it.

Right now, you've got two combatants who are locked in a death grip with one another.  This isn't anything like Afghanistan, where the Russians could just decide they'd had enough, cross a bridge, and be done with it.  Even if Russia were to evacuate all of the occupied territories, they've kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian citizens.  And I just don't see the Ukrainians not pursuing that militarily.

Because, let's be honest--if Russia were to evacuate the occupied territories (and I think we all agree that Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting until that happens, including the Crimea, right?), that would probably mean that the Russian military is so badly degraded that it can't defend Russian territory.  By that point, the road to Moscow might be open, allowing significant Ukrainian advances into Russia itself.  But of course, that really does raise the prospect of nuclear-weapon use.

So neither of these sides can stop fighting unilaterally.  And there's really no available political solution that could result in an agreed cessation of the fighting.  So I really don't see how this turns into anything other than a very long war.

And to a very large degree, I think that suits us just fine.

The way the United States has been dispensing aid, it's pretty clear that the primary goal is to degrade the Russian military.  Ensuring Ukrainian victory is a goal, but it is decidedly a secondary goal.  If that were the primary goal, we'd be giving them the good stuff--Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, F-16s--and the Ukrainians would be able to eject the Russians from Ukrainian territory in a couple months.  But we're not doing that.  Instead, we're giving them just enough of the right kind of weapons to make sure that they kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian equipment without really having the ability to redeem all of their territory.

And from a purely cynical standpoint, I think that makes a lot of sense.  We don't owe Ukraine anything.  And Ukraine shouldn't expect anything to come from the goodness of our hearts.  What we've got going on right now is an exchange of goods for services.  We give them goods, and they give us the service of killing as many Russians as possible.  

And that's an important service, because it means that Russia can't meaningfully threaten a NATO ally for at least the next decade.  And because an attack on a NATO ally would have to be met with American military force, that saves American lives.

 

 

So . . . TLDR: Buckle up--this is a multi-year war that is going to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.  But in reality, that's a feature, not a bug.  That long-term war of attrition degrades Russia and thereby makes America safer.

I don't think this is true, it would certainly be true if Putin didn't have nukes. Nuclear weapons are what make our involvement here extremely sketchy and we need to proceed with caution and just enough to give them to win without saying "hey we gave them the best shit", right now we are giving them like for like tech - stuff they could have bought from Russia if Russia was even able to produce it generation wise. 

If we give them weapons that outmatch Russia with no chance to even fight then they just use nukes because there is no other option. this keeps every other option on the table in a real way. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

36 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Honestly, one of y'all with military/political/diplomatic/NAFO insight needs to explain to me just how this thing ends.  Because I don't see it.

Right now, you've got two combatants who are locked in a death grip with one another.  This isn't anything like Afghanistan, where the Russians could just decide they'd had enough, cross a bridge, and be done with it.  Even if Russia were to evacuate all of the occupied territories, they've kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian citizens.  And I just don't see the Ukrainians not pursuing that militarily.

Because, let's be honest--if Russia were to evacuate the occupied territories (and I think we all agree that Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting until that happens, including the Crimea, right?), that would probably mean that the Russian military is so badly degraded that it can't defend Russian territory.  By that point, the road to Moscow might be open, allowing significant Ukrainian advances into Russia itself.  But of course, that really does raise the prospect of nuclear-weapon use.

So neither of these sides can stop fighting unilaterally.  And there's really no available political solution that could result in an agreed cessation of the fighting.  So I really don't see how this turns into anything other than a very long war.

And to a very large degree, I think that suits us just fine.

The way the United States has been dispensing aid, it's pretty clear that the primary goal is to degrade the Russian military.  Ensuring Ukrainian victory is a goal, but it is decidedly a secondary goal.  If that were the primary goal, we'd be giving them the good stuff--Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, F-16s--and the Ukrainians would be able to eject the Russians from Ukrainian territory in a couple months.  But we're not doing that.  Instead, we're giving them just enough of the right kind of weapons to make sure that they kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian equipment without really having the ability to redeem all of their territory.

And from a purely cynical standpoint, I think that makes a lot of sense.  We don't owe Ukraine anything.  And Ukraine shouldn't expect anything to come from the goodness of our hearts.  What we've got going on right now is an exchange of goods for services.  We give them goods, and they give us the service of killing as many Russians as possible.  

And that's an important service, because it means that Russia can't meaningfully threaten a NATO ally for at least the next decade.  And because an attack on a NATO ally would have to be met with American military force, that saves American lives.

 

 

So . . . TLDR: Buckle up--this is a multi-year war that is going to result in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides.  But in reality, that's a feature, not a bug.  That long-term war of attrition degrades Russia and thereby makes America safer.

well i thought it was a wonderful story.  and you tell it so well!

 

 

 

No, I kid. Interesting, but I disagree with a whole lot of it.  I don't think that it is inevitable that UKr won't stop until they take Crimea.  It's the most prickly defended and the hardest to take in a navy-less world of all the locations.  It's been able to be fortified the longest, and it is geographically the most isolated.  I think there is a substantial likelihood of sue for peace situation that keeps Crimea in Russian hands, maybe in legal sense, maybe in a de facto sense.  I don't think that we're holding back our good stuff because we're ambivalent about them winning.  We are balancing a number of interests, but mostly that we aren't that keen on giving anyone our good stuff, let alone a non-NATO country that we were at odds with less than a decade ago.  I don't really think the goal is to degrade the Russian military.  That's just a fun benefit (and the one that will economically benefit us the most, so we certainly encourage it).  I think the goal is basically humanitarian.  We believe in democracy.  We oppose genocidal conquest.  This fledgling democracy is being invaded.  The invasion is the closest we've had to mirror the conduct of the 1930s in the 90 years since, so we aren't going to be caught flat footed this time.  And I don't think that UKr is going to be marching on Moscow, if that is what you meant by the road being open.  The sweet sweet US teat would be cut off the second they start something like that, and UKr doesn't want that.

[kevwun 16460]

I think they are going to starve the Russians out of Crimea.  They're going to take out the Kerch Bridge totally at some point and watch Russia fail miserable at trying to supply it with ferries.  It makes no sense for Ukraine to stop without taking it back because the war isn't going to be over until Russia loses that foothold regardless of what the treaties say.  Russia is probably going to try to re-take it in a few decades if they do lose it.

Edited October 18, 2022 by kevwun

[Schulz2.0 29313]

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

This ends when Putin is removed from power.

One thing to keep an eye on…should Navalny die in prison, I think that would be a clear indication regime change is imminent.

[tx 3 putt 78848]

Someone takes out Putin. The new ‘leader’ calls for a cease fire 

[Snake Diggity 4762]

The war crimes have made it really hard to envision any kind of full resolution in the near term.  If the Russians hadn’t bombed civilians en masse then I would think there could be a negotiated truce (Russia keeps Crimea, Ukraine promises to never join NATO, Russia pays money for reparations).  As it is I think this only ends with Putin’s death or displacement; that could take awhile and cost the world a lot.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

35 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

The war crimes have made it really hard to envision any kind of full resolution in the near term.  If the Russians hadn’t bombed civilians en masse then I would think there could be a negotiated truce (Russia keeps Crimea, Ukraine promises to never join NATO, Russia pays money for reparations).  As it is I think this only ends with Putin’s death or displacement; that could take awhile and cost the world a lot.

yeah, it is hard to figure out what the purpose of the war crimes is.  is it good for russians back home as a message of toughness?  is it supposed to wear down ukraine's resolve?  is it supposed to be a message to the west that we should work to end the war as soon as possible?  some of it is clearly ordered and not just rogue soldiers going rogue, so there has to be some perceived benefit of it.  i just don't get any of it.  

[Chad Fuck 18176]

2 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

yeah, it is hard to figure out what the purpose of the war crimes is.  is it good for russians back home as a message of toughness?  is it supposed to wear down ukraine's resolve?  is it supposed to be a message to the west that we should work to end the war as soon as possible?  some of it is clearly ordered and not just rogue soldiers going rogue, so there has to be some perceived benefit of it.  i just don't get any of it.  

To them, it is a projection of strength. They want any one around them to know that if you don't give them what they want, they will literally fuck your wives, steal your kids and kill your grandparents.  Or all of the above and not necessarily in that order.  And they may even do those things if you DO give them what they want.

It's a Mongol Horde mentality, but they come by it naturally.  

[Schulz2.0 29313]

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1736]

9 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

yeah, it is hard to figure out what the purpose of the war crimes is.  is it good for russians back home as a message of toughness?  is it supposed to wear down ukraine's resolve?  is it supposed to be a message to the west that we should work to end the war as soon as possible?  some of it is clearly ordered and not just rogue soldiers going rogue, so there has to be some perceived benefit of it.  i just don't get any of it.  

 

It's in their nature

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

very excited for a new chapter in the Israel-Iran proxy war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict

 

 

[Teddyballgame 441]

 

[Gravy Train 978]

Oh what the hell is this... some RAF pensioners decide the price for treason is only $300K.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Gravy Train

[SquishMitten 10498]

On 10/16/2022 at 1:04 PM, Laxtonto said:

What surprises me isn't that this happened, but the number of dead from this. Were they a machine gun crew and spun the tripod onto the training platoon? Was this during grenade demonstrations? Killing 22 is more difficult than it would sound on a training range. This is one of those stories that as more things leak out the more questions I have about this.

Same thought. I'm wondering if it could have anything to do with the lack of equipment available. With what we've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a 50 guys standing around sharing 10 guns. If those 3 shot the 7 other armed guys right off the bat, they could turn and lay waste to a crowd right behind them pretty quickly. 

[Deej 77931]

19 minutes ago, Teddyballgame said:

 

Poor guy was probably just getting a bj from his comrade in the cab of the truck and never knew what hit him. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

1 minute ago, Deej said:

Poor guy was probably just getting a bj from his comrade in the cab of the truck and never knew what hit him. 

sort of the teenage thrill of when your parents were in the next room.  shhh shhh.. they'll hear us.. if my [ukrainian drone pilots] know we're in here we're dead.

[InkaUtexas 27053]

21 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

Oh what the hell is this... some RAF pensioners decide the price for treason is only $300K.

 

I think I know one of the recruiters. Aussie F-18 pilot. Lately been running in and out of Hong Kong. Yeah, he had affiliations with Erik the small Prince. 

Fuck em. Treason. Hang their heads. 

[Goredho 17663]

4 hours ago, Foosters said:

Are we certain that's not a school board meeting here in America?

The world is transmogrifying into one giant cloak room.

[The Dog 44888]

shit is happening in Kherson:

 

[Bevo 13939]

16 minutes ago, Goredho said:

The world is transmogrifying into one giant cloak room.

I think you misspelled cock.

[Brisketexan 107063]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

yeah, it is hard to figure out what the purpose of the war crimes is.  is it good for russians back home as a message of toughness?  is it supposed to wear down ukraine's resolve?  is it supposed to be a message to the west that we should work to end the war as soon as possible?  some of it is clearly ordered and not just rogue soldiers going rogue, so there has to be some perceived benefit of it.  i just don't get any of it.  

Well.......

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

To them, it is a projection of strength. They want any one around them to know that if you don't give them what they want, they will literally fuck your wives, steal your kids and kill your grandparents.  Or all of the above and not necessarily in that order.  And they may even do those things if you DO give them what they want.

It's a Mongol Horde mentality, but they come by it naturally.  

This, and

1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

It's in their nature

This.

Read that Estonian article linked a couple of pages back.  It's been the Russian nature since Ivan the Terrible.  Their most consistent weapon/tactic for centuries has been "cruelty."  It's not a bug, it's a feature.  It's THE feature.

We wanted to convince ourselves that Russians don't suck, that their culture is actually capable of functioning in the civilized world.  We lied to ourselves to believe that.  They are not.  They probably never will be.

Germany had some really shitty parts of its cultural nature.  It took complete and total defeat, unconditional surrender, and reconstruction under the firm hand of the liberal democratic order to reign those in.

Japan had some really shitty parts of its cultural nature.  It took complete and total defeat, unconditional surrender, and reconstruction under the firm hand of the liberal democratic order to reign those in.

Russia has some really shitty parts of its cultural nature.  The fact that it has never been conquered and had that bullshit beaten out of it is presenting the world with quite a problem.

[Bevo 13939]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

We wanted to convince ourselves that Russians don't suck, that their culture is actually capable of functioning in the civilized world.  We lied to ourselves to believe that.  They are not.  They probably never will be.

Well, I think we used to get images like:

 

And now we get images like:

 

[Schulz2.0 29313]