|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Russian Federation618 Posts
On July 15 2022 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2022 18:05 Silvanel wrote:
Russian stock of cruise and ballistic missiles is far larger than most people think. For example Soviet Union built around 3000 of KH-22 missille family (which is basicaly anti-carrier missile, but as we can see have also other uses). Noone outside of Russian military really knows how much they still have in stock (some were scrapped). I saw some estimates they have around 1000 of them still.
And this is only KH family. They also have Iskanders, Kalibr and Toczkas (which they say they dont have anymore, but videos show they do). I am pretty sure there are also other missile families they can use in this role. 'they build 3k missiles 30+ years ago" is why Russian missiles had a 60% failure rate, and those were the 'fresh' missiles they used at the start of the conflict. You can't just throw a missile in storage for decades, ignore their maintenance because corruption and then expect them to work.
Silvanel is talking about KH-22, which started to see use somewhere in late May. Kalibrs and Iskanders were made much later than KH-22 (while their first developments were at the end of Cold war, they enered mass production in late 00-s). Also can you please elaborate on "60% failure rate"? Though yes, storaging issues do take place, but this is common for any military.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/world/europe/ukraine-ammo-shortage-artillery.html
"Another soldier, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that a batch of Czech-supplied rockets were faulty, with only three out of 40 firing."
@Silvanel there are also at least KH-32 (though this is deep KH-22 upgrade), KH-55, KH-59 and Kinzhal ("Dagger") air-launched cruise missiles (though the latter was produced only in small batch in recent years). P-800 "Onyx" anti-ship missiles from shore-defence launchers are also used to strike at ground targets.
And Tochkas were said to be removed from active service in 2019, not that all missiles and launching platforms were scrapped immediatly after.
|
On July 15 2022 18:35 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2022 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On July 15 2022 18:05 Silvanel wrote:
Russian stock of cruise and ballistic missiles is far larger than most people think. For example Soviet Union built around 3000 of KH-22 missille family (which is basicaly anti-carrier missile, but as we can see have also other uses). Noone outside of Russian military really knows how much they still have in stock (some were scrapped). I saw some estimates they have around 1000 of them still.
And this is only KH family. They also have Iskanders, Kalibr and Toczkas (which they say they dont have anymore, but videos show they do). I am pretty sure there are also other missile families they can use in this role. 'they build 3k missiles 30+ years ago" is why Russian missiles had a 60% failure rate, and those were the 'fresh' missiles they used at the start of the conflict. You can't just throw a missile in storage for decades, ignore their maintenance because corruption and then expect them to work. Silvanel is talking about KH-22, which started to see use somewhere in late May. Kalibrs and Iskanders were made much later than KH-22 (while their first developments were at the end of Cold war, they enered mass production in late 00-s). Also can you please elaborate on "60% failure rate"? Though yes, storaging issues do take place, but this is common for any military. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/world/europe/ukraine-ammo-shortage-artillery.html"Another soldier, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that a batch of Czech-supplied rockets were faulty, with only three out of 40 firing."@Silvanel there are also at least X-32 (though this is deep X-22 upgrade), X-55, X-59 and Kinzhal ("Dagger") air-launched cruise missiles (though the latter was produced only in small batch in recent years). P-800 "Onyx" anti-ship missiles from shore-defence launchers are also used to strike at ground targets. And Tochkas were said to be removed from active service in 2019, not that all missiles and launching platforms were scrapped immediatly after. The 60% failure rate was reported early(ish) in the war.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-assesses-up-60-failure-rate-some-russian-missiles-officials-say-2022-03-24/
|
Rogozin out at Roscosmos, right at the time where reports say he is headed to Ukraine.
Longtime Putin ally Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s notorious space chief, could be up for a new job overseeing eastern territories in Ukraine that Russian forces are seizing in the war, according to Meduza.
Rogozin, who heads up Roscosmos, Russia’s space agency, could soon be appointed to serve as chief of staff or a presidential aide as well, Meduza reports, citing three sources close to the Kremlin and an acquaintance of Rogozin’s.
Rumors have long been circulating about Rogozin’s future in Russia, but his exact future role isn’t known at this time. Russia’s space chief, though, is known for hurling unhinged threats and comments left and right and has a habit of casually threatening nuclear war.
Source
|
|
|
On July 15 2022 23:48 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2022 22:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rogozin out at Roscosmos, right at the time where reports say he is headed to Ukraine. Longtime Putin ally Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s notorious space chief, could be up for a new job overseeing eastern territories in Ukraine that Russian forces are seizing in the war, according to Meduza.
Rogozin, who heads up Roscosmos, Russia’s space agency, could soon be appointed to serve as chief of staff or a presidential aide as well, Meduza reports, citing three sources close to the Kremlin and an acquaintance of Rogozin’s.
Rumors have long been circulating about Rogozin’s future in Russia, but his exact future role isn’t known at this time. Russia’s space chief, though, is known for hurling unhinged threats and comments left and right and has a habit of casually threatening nuclear war. Sourcehttps://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1547932099272777729 And this guy's an actual neo-Nazi too. Jesus fuck Personal gripe but I got flamed hard by other leftists for pointing out that Russia is a far-right borderline fascist country with a Neo-Nazi problem and they refused to believe it. At least Ukraine sent their Neo-Nazi Azov battalion to Mauripol to fight a suicide mission that wiped them out.
Yeah, there is some weird part of the left that is very in love with Russia. It exists here in Germany, too. As a leftist myself, I don't quite understand why. It is very strange. I don't know if they just like anyone who is in opposition to the US.
|
Well. That's very discouraging. If the fact that Russia have a dictator and invaded a neighboring country with explicitly stated objective to eradicate its identity didn't point them in the right direction, then I don't know what could.
The grass is greener on the other side? I mean, some westerners are so bent on hating their own side that they will overlook all the flaws of the other side?
|
|
|
|
|
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
|
United States43964 Posts
On July 16 2022 01:59 plasmidghost wrote:
One thing I've noticed in leftist spaces in the West is that there's this Noam Chomsky line of thinking wherein the United States is the ultimate evil and therefore any problem in other countries is the fault of the US. Not going to get into the logic of that, so I'll apply it to the current war to keep the thread on topic:
I'll get into the logic of that.
On the one hand the US does a lot of evil shit. On the other it's generally because they have more power to execute a moderately evil agenda than nations that are more evil but less powerful.
Does the US bring more suffering into the world than NK? I'd say yes, hundreds of thousands died in the Iraq civil wars and the regimes installed by the US in Latin America in the 20th Century weren't great, what with the death squads etc. Does that mean the US is more evil than NK? Not really.
It's important to have a discussion of the impact the US has on the world, especially given the jingoistic USAUSA culture that promotes sanctimonious ignorance regarding US foreign policy. In that regard it's important that the critics exist and given the extremism of the view they're disagreeing with it makes sense that the negation would also be extreme. When one side claims the US can do no evil it's obviously tempting to respond that the US can do no good. Nuance doesn't get views and views are generally considered more important than the exact accuracy of a claim.
|
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
Dude, what "diplomatic solutions"? US backed overthrowing? "US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia." (that is a war of choice for russia, but not for ukraine or the west?
I feel like you are the embodiment of that stupid drawing a few posts up.
|
On July 16 2022 01:59 plasmidghost wrote:Zelenskyy being a centrist (not to mention Jewish, which irks me a lot)
So you're saying you don't like Jews? j/k ;p
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
Well, that's pretty fucking stupid because literally no one forced Russia to attack Ukraine, let alone make genocide their goal.
And stop spreading Russian propaganda about the US somehow overthrowing the government in Ukraine. Ukrainians have their own agency. Yanukovich backtracked on his election promises which led to massive protests. Bemused, he started killing the protesters. Shit hit the fan and he fled the country, got stripped of his office by the parliament.
Not to mention the fact that it was two (?) election cycles ago.
|
United States43964 Posts
On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine.
There's no diplomatic solution to be had here. Putin's Russia is fascist and genocidal. Diplomacy requires the ability to give the other side what they want and when what they want is the destruction of the Ukrainian people there simply is no concession that can be given. You can't haggle with fascists.
There is also no push by the US to indefinitely sustain the war. There is an absolute need to avoid direct conflict between nuclear powers for obvious reasons which results in a series of bizarre compromises and workarounds. If the US directly attacks Russia we end up in a potentially escalatory situation which is prudent to avoid. During the Cold War a set of rules was developed to avoid things getting to that point and the US is following those rules in terms of the arms it is making available to Ukraine. A US flagged ship that carries weapons bound for Ukraine could be judged as a reasonable target for Russia. The Ukrainian soldiers training on Salisbury plain in the UK could be judged as reasonable targets. However both of those would necessitate direct responses by those nations so Russia is extremely hesitant to do those if not forced. But if Ukraine fired long range missiles at weapons factories within Russia then Russia may feel forced to destroy ships bringing those weapons to Ukraine.
A Ukrainian soldier shooting a Russian soldier in Ukraine with bullets given to them by the US is considered below the line that forces a response. The life of a soldier is not worth it to Russia. A Ukrainian soldier launching US sourced missiles at Russian territory is potentially above it. The US is doing all it can to prop Ukraine up, they're pushing that line pretty hard with some of the more advanced weapon systems they've given.
|
I think the posters above had made the most important points but it remains to be said that a large proportion of any electorate doesn't have the time and background to educate themselves on the ever-shifting world of diplomacy. So many of them have no idea about the fact that RU is no longer communist, nor do they believe much about the atrocities of the Soviet Union because when they grew up there were no credible sources about it yet (unless you happened across one of the few surviving victims who made it to the west).
Chomsky, my dear colleague, is another animal entirely, willing to withhold humanity from entire peoples to push his own agenda, but that's probably a minority.
|
On July 16 2022 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2022 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't speak to the "Noam Chomsky" aspect but it starts with seeing the US exploiting Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns in a proxy war with Russia.
The relevant history goes at least back to post WWII and Operation Gladio. More recently was the US backed overthrowing of the Ukrainian government.
I'm not in left circles that say Russia is justified in eliminating Ukraine but the west and the US certainly played a role in it getting to this point and pushing to sustain the war indefinitely over diplomatic solutions.
None of that excuses Russia's actions, just a bit of perspective of why some leftists didn't go full hawk mode over Ukraine. There's no diplomatic solution to be had here. + Show Spoiler + Putin's Russia is fascist and genocidal. Diplomacy requires the ability to give the other side what they want and when what they want is the destruction of the Ukrainian people there simply is no concession that can be given. You can't haggle with fascists.
There is also no push by the US to indefinitely sustain the war. There is an absolute need to avoid direct conflict between nuclear powers for obvious reasons which results in a series of bizarre compromises and workarounds. If the US directly attacks Russia we end up in a potentially escalatory situation which is prudent to avoid. During the Cold War a set of rules was developed to avoid things getting to that point and the US is following those rules in terms of the arms it is making available to Ukraine. A US flagged ship that carries weapons bound for Ukraine could be judged as a reasonable target for Russia. The Ukrainian soldiers training on Salisbury plain in the UK could be judged as reasonable targets. However both of those would necessitate direct responses by those nations so Russia is extremely hesitant to do those if not forced. But if Ukraine fired long range missiles at weapons factories within Russia then Russia may feel forced to destroy ships bringing those weapons to Ukraine.
A Ukrainian soldier shooting a Russian soldier in Ukraine with bullets given to them by the US is considered below the line that forces a response. The life of a soldier is not worth it to Russia. A Ukrainian soldier launching US sourced missiles at Russian territory is potentially above it. The US is doing all it can to prop Ukraine up, they're pushing that line pretty hard with some of the more advanced weapon systems they've given.
I think it's worth digging into what that means. What solutions are to be had here in your view then?
|
|
|
On July 16 2022 04:19 plasmidghost wrote:
I think an important part of being leftist is rejecting the very nature of imperialism, no matter who does it. Russia is imperialist. The US is imperialist. They're both far-right, which is a garbage scenario for morals, but only one of them is actively invading and destroying another country with the goals of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
When Hitler was given Czechoslovakia by the rest of the West in 1938, my family found themselves suddenly under Nazi rule. No one fought for them. No one advocated for them. They were killed and now I think I have only three distant family members in the Czech Republic now, compared to the couple of dozen I know of that were there pre-1938. I will oppose all genocide, even if it's committed by people who share my ideology, but especially by fascists.
That's why I support Ukraine.
I would go further and say that anyone who commits genocide doesn't share my ideology. They may claim to do, but they do not.
And yeah, there have been few situations where the ethics of a war have been as clear as here. A defensive war on your own territory against unprovoked aggression by a stronger neighbour.
|
This is not a left wing vs right wing war. Far left or far right, those who oppose supporting Ukraine are useful friends of Kremlin.
|
Iran will not be supplying Russia with Drones.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said that Iran “avoids doing anything that might lead to further escalation in Ukraine, such as delivering weapons,” as quoted by Poland’s kresy24.pl website on Friday.
Iran’s top diplomat added: “We have military agreements with Russia, but we won’t help any of the parties to this conflict,” kresy24.pl reported, citing Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper.
Source
|
On July 16 2022 03:42 Ghanburighan wrote:
So many of them have no idea about the fact that RU is no longer communist
Russia never really was communist (I don't think any country really was). They claimed to be, but they weren't. Just like China led by the Communist Party is not really communist.
War communism was the first system adopted by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War as result of the many challenges. Despite communism in the name, it had nothing to do with communism, with strict discipline for workers, strike actions forbidden, obligatory labor duty, and military-style control, and has been described as simple authoritarian control by the Bolsheviks to maintain power and control in the Soviet regions, rather than any coherent political ideology.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
I'm surprised that people associate countries like Russia and China with communism (the ideology). They used it only to further the goals of their authoritarian governments, not even really attempting to achieve the goals of communism.
It seems that a lot of people also forget that you can only get to communism through capitalism as you need to generate so much wealth and develop enough to be able to sustain the communist ideals (need enough wealth for it to be distributed and everyone can be happy so then the workers can control the means of production etc.). I know I'm oversimplifying it but I don't think this is a thread for such discussions, especially that there's plenty of materials on the subject available elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
