|
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 Federation605 Posts
On September 21 2022 23:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now the question is if Putin and co were expecting to get numbers from inside the former soviet territories. Not so fast according to those governments that have warned anyone thinking about it.
There are millions of illegal immigrants from Central Asia in Russia already, who have no legal status, and are basically cheap labor force with no civil rights (they still go here, because even then they get paid more than back at home). Some of them might use it as an opportunity to get legal here (and get a lot of money in the process).
|
On September 21 2022 23:36 gobbledydook wrote:
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace.
I hope that no one buys that one. It is a typical Kremlin reasoning, but it is also fucking stupid.
|
Pretty smart thinking on Germany's part, only problem is how will Russians fleeing from mobilization get there.
|
Agreed. As others have said, we should be open to refugees from Russia. And someone who does not want to participate in a war of aggression and is facing repression due to that sounds like a very legitimate refugee to me.
The reactions in that twitter threat are a bit sad, though.
|
On September 21 2022 23:36 gobbledydook wrote:
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace. No one believes Russia will glass itself over the Donbas.
|
On September 21 2022 23:13 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:07 Artesimo wrote:On September 21 2022 22:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 21 2022 21:24 Artesimo wrote:
And we are already back to not engaging with any sources(especially not the ones directly refuting you) and instead making claims without backing up anything and calling people armchair generals... I am disappointed, but not surprised. I mean, the only "engagement" I can see is your source of a Youtube video with a reserve officer from UA saying in July that they don't need 1-2 battalions of Leopards, they need the 100 available T-72s instead. I think we can all agree with the approach: "soviet tanks first, then new modern NATO ones". But, he doesn't represent the Ukraine General Staff, nor are we still in the situation that was the case in the beginning of July, nor are there significant numbers of soviet tanks to send anymore. It's time to talk about Leopards, and we need to talk about more than 1-2 battalions. Now finally we are engaging with sources. Yes, we need more than 1-2 battalions (which is what is said in the interview) and my whole argument has been hinging on the fact that I expect it to be difficult and unlikely to get that many tanks given the state of european militaries and the fact that you would require the cooperation of multiple nations to get them together). I am not arguing for more soviet tanks, and don't think that was the point of what is being said. The point was that you need to provide adequate numbers to make up for the additional challenges a new weapon system introduces. You can ask for how many leopard you want, while I rather ask for the tank where it is much more realistic to obtain it in sufficient numbers and where I expect it to be easier to set up and scale up maintenance facilities. The US defence industry complex is massive and in many areas has capacities and capabilities that europe is simply lacking when it comes to volume, which is what is needed in my opinion. And on the topics of logistics / maintenance, you missed the part where I linked 2 sources that show ukraine is not able to manage the more complex repairs on the PzH but rather have to send them to poland and lithuania, probably due to special facilities / tools being needed. So yeah, imo its time to talk about the much easier available abrahams where all you need is 1 nation to say 'alright lets do this' rather than end up with a half baked solution of getting ukraine a handful of leopards and some more abrahams that you scrape together from various nations. Dude, so you just use the fact that I replied to your request for "engagement" to skip my entire argumentation to rehash the stuff you said which was already countered. How about you engage with what I said, then. Because it already covered what you rehashed here. If UA can make PZH 2000 maintenance work via Poland and Lithuania, we should trust it to make Leopard 2s work. It's not a debate between this or that tank, UA is willing to accept any kind of MBTs, as long as they get them early. Stop being armchair general who thinks he knows better than the Ukrainians actually fighting the war.
I feel like I addressed everything you said, I went over that this is not a call for soviet tanks, agreed to western tanks, yes to more than 1-2 batallions, disagreement over where to get those / what the best course of action is while not moving to fantasy land. I don't know how I did not engage with your arguments, with your sources I can not engage since you never give any.
I don't think maintaining and repairing less than 20 PzH can be compared to multiple hundreds of tanks.
It's not a debate between this or that tank, UA is willing to accept any kind of MBTs, as long as they get them early.
On September 21 2022 19:03 Ghanburighan wrote:
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war.
Sounds like it is exactly the kind of debate we are having until it no longer suits you... Of course I agree that any tank is better than no tank, but this insisting that leopard is THE solution just does not hold outside of fantasy land where there is a big supply of ready to go leopards2 with a bunch of countries willing to just hand them off. I feel like more pressure should be put on the US to deliver abrahams / make them available by some scheme since that is what to me would be the easiest and fastest way to get ukraine sufficient amount of tanks and put them in a position where they can plan for it long term, justify setting up their own dedicated repair facilities etc. Set up a scheme that has germany/EU pay for it for all I care. They literally have more than they need as they have been buying them just to keep production lines open. Vou would have to do training anyway and would add tanks gradually, so getting the ones in storage ready is not a problem either as long as you make sure you can roll out a large enough batch. I once again are just making assumptions here, but I expect their storage tanks on average to be in much better conditions than what you find in most EU storages and if not that, then you still should be finding enough tanks in good conditions just because of the numbers. And when it comes to taking them from active service: same argument here: The US has so many they would not even miss them, I find numbers between 4-5k in active service in the US military... And all the arguments of them being in a safe geographic location and not really needing them apply just the same.
I don't get your hostility all the time when talking to people who want the same thing as you, but just have different opinions on how to get there...
|
On September 21 2022 23:45 Simberto wrote:Agreed. As others have said, we should be open to refugees from Russia. And someone who does not want to participate in a war of aggression and is facing repression due to that sounds like a very legitimate refugee to me. The reactions in that twitter threat are a bit sad, though.
Well, the other sad thing is that humanitarian visas and the like have a pretty bad track record in terms of how fast they get processed here in germany. I don't want to kick off another shitflinging, but it would be a great time for tourist visas... Make it as easy as possible for russians to get out. I know people who literally are packing right now because they expect to get called up for being former military and many of them in specialist jobs.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 21 2022 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:36 gobbledydook wrote:
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace. No one believes Russia will glass itself over the Donbas.
I still think that referenda are necessary to legally enter conscripts there (at least in the rear lines to assist with logistics), plus establish all Russian government institutions within those regions, including education, healthcare and police. It will also allow to simply send there these people from other parts of Russia (since it would be considered as moving into other part of Russia). And then, if attacks on these authorities continue (like the ones that were happening in Berdyansk, Kherson, Melitopol etc.) - it would allow to enforce a counter-terrorist operation like it was in Chechnya on those territories, with the help of local police units (which would be actual Russian police, not some ad hoc militia forces).
|
On September 21 2022 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:36 gobbledydook wrote:
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace. No one believes Russia will glass itself over the Donbas.
They might calculate that they might be able to get away with it with the implicit threat that if you strike back, it's going to be a lot more nukes going your way.
Since you can't win a nuclear war, the calculus may be that the US will back off instead of, say, risk getting San Francisco nuked in return for Moscow.
|
On September 22 2022 00:00 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2022 23:36 gobbledydook wrote:
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace. No one believes Russia will glass itself over the Donbas. I still think that referenda are necessary to legally enter conscripts there (at least in the rear lines to assist with logistics), plus establish all Russian government institutions within those regions, including education, healthcare and police. It will also allow to simply send there these people from other parts of Russia (since it would be considered as moving into other part of Russia). And then, if attacks on these authorities continue (like the ones that were happening in Berdyansk, Kherson, Melitopol etc.) - it would allow to enforce a counter-terrorist operation like it was in Chechnya on those territories, with the help of local police units (which would be actual Russian police, not some ad hoc militia forces). Yeah, I agree this is probably why. And I also see it as an admission that things are going to worse for Russia rather then better, its basically admitting that they won't reconquer what they have lost and they are trying to settle for what they can get right now.
I don't think Putin is going to claim victory tho, which I have seen speculated in places, because Ukraine is not going to stop.
Claiming the special operation succeeded because they annexed the new land and then still be stuck in a war there and eventually lose those new 'Russian' regions would be an even bigger blow.
|
|
|
On September 22 2022 00:02 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:46 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2022 23:36 gobbledydook wrote:
I've seen arguments that Russia's plan is to annex the occupied areas under Russian law, then threaten nuclear strikes on any Ukrainian forces now 'invading Russia'.
The supposed plan is that by threatening nuclear war Russia could then scare the West into forcing Ukraine to settle for peace. No one believes Russia will glass itself over the Donbas. They might calculate that they might be able to get away with it with the implicit threat that if you strike back, it's going to be a lot more nukes going your way. Since you can't win a nuclear war, the calculus may be that the US will back off instead of, say, risk getting San Francisco nuked in return for Moscow. Allowing a little bit of nukes will open a can of worms literally no one in the world wants to touch.
If Moscow gets to nuke Ukraine, does the US get to nuke the middle east? Can China nuke Taiwan?
No one wants to go down that road, no one is going to allow another nation to use nuclear weapons at any point. They exist for MAD and MAD only.
|
|
|
On September 22 2022 00:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:45 Simberto wrote:Agreed. As others have said, we should be open to refugees from Russia. And someone who does not want to participate in a war of aggression and is facing repression due to that sounds like a very legitimate refugee to me. The reactions in that twitter threat are a bit sad, though. It is hard for people to separate what Russia is doing and what Russians want. It really sucks for those who do not want any part of this. I also think there is some legitimate fear of FSB agents posing and causing issues. It is a really shitty time to be a Russian who does not support the war, and this will likely last decades. My wife's grandparents snuck out of the Ukraine during WW2, they were Germanic speakers. All the children got beaten up at school, the teachers were even awful to them and they were fleeing the Nazi's. I would hope people would be better now, but that fear and anger will still show up and be misdirected at anyone with a Russian accent, maybe even last name.
Yes, and that sucks. People should be able to recognize that the Russians who want to leave Russia because they do not want to be involved in Putins war are not the Russians you should be mad at. But people are sadly often very bad at thinking.
|
On September 21 2022 23:51 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 23:13 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 21 2022 23:07 Artesimo wrote:On September 21 2022 22:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 21 2022 21:24 Artesimo wrote:
And we are already back to not engaging with any sources(especially not the ones directly refuting you) and instead making claims without backing up anything and calling people armchair generals... I am disappointed, but not surprised. I mean, the only "engagement" I can see is your source of a Youtube video with a reserve officer from UA saying in July that they don't need 1-2 battalions of Leopards, they need the 100 available T-72s instead. I think we can all agree with the approach: "soviet tanks first, then new modern NATO ones". But, he doesn't represent the Ukraine General Staff, nor are we still in the situation that was the case in the beginning of July, nor are there significant numbers of soviet tanks to send anymore. It's time to talk about Leopards, and we need to talk about more than 1-2 battalions. Now finally we are engaging with sources. Yes, we need more than 1-2 battalions (which is what is said in the interview) and my whole argument has been hinging on the fact that I expect it to be difficult and unlikely to get that many tanks given the state of european militaries and the fact that you would require the cooperation of multiple nations to get them together). I am not arguing for more soviet tanks, and don't think that was the point of what is being said. The point was that you need to provide adequate numbers to make up for the additional challenges a new weapon system introduces. You can ask for how many leopard you want, while I rather ask for the tank where it is much more realistic to obtain it in sufficient numbers and where I expect it to be easier to set up and scale up maintenance facilities. The US defence industry complex is massive and in many areas has capacities and capabilities that europe is simply lacking when it comes to volume, which is what is needed in my opinion. And on the topics of logistics / maintenance, you missed the part where I linked 2 sources that show ukraine is not able to manage the more complex repairs on the PzH but rather have to send them to poland and lithuania, probably due to special facilities / tools being needed. So yeah, imo its time to talk about the much easier available abrahams where all you need is 1 nation to say 'alright lets do this' rather than end up with a half baked solution of getting ukraine a handful of leopards and some more abrahams that you scrape together from various nations. Dude, so you just use the fact that I replied to your request for "engagement" to skip my entire argumentation to rehash the stuff you said which was already countered. How about you engage with what I said, then. Because it already covered what you rehashed here. If UA can make PZH 2000 maintenance work via Poland and Lithuania, we should trust it to make Leopard 2s work. It's not a debate between this or that tank, UA is willing to accept any kind of MBTs, as long as they get them early. Stop being armchair general who thinks he knows better than the Ukrainians actually fighting the war. I feel like I addressed everything you said, I went over that this is not a call for soviet tanks, agreed to western tanks, yes to more than 1-2 batallions, disagreement over where to get those / what the best course of action is while not moving to fantasy land. I don't know how I did not engage with your arguments, with your sources I can not engage since you never give any. I don't think maintaining and repairing less than 20 PzH can be compared to multiple hundreds of tanks. Show nested quote +It's not a debate between this or that tank, UA is willing to accept any kind of MBTs, as long as they get them early.
Show nested quote +On September 21 2022 19:03 Ghanburighan wrote:
There's a reason why UA and its more vocal allies are asking for Leopards, it makes the most sense for the next stage of the war. Sounds like it is exactly the kind of debate we are having until it no longer suits you... Of course I agree that any tank is better than no tank, but this insisting that leopard is THE solution just does not hold outside of fantasy land where there is a big supply of ready to go leopards2 with a bunch of countries willing to just hand them off. I feel like more pressure should be put on the US to deliver abrahams / make them available by some scheme since that is what to me would be the easiest and fastest way to get ukraine sufficient amount of tanks and put them in a position where they can plan for it long term, justify setting up their own dedicated repair facilities etc. Set up a scheme that has germany/EU pay for it for all I care. They literally have more than they need as they have been buying them just to keep production lines open. Vou would have to do training anyway and would add tanks gradually, so getting the ones in storage ready is not a problem either as long as you make sure you can roll out a large enough batch. I once again are just making assumptions here, but I expect their storage tanks on average to be in much better conditions than what you find in most EU storages and if not that, then you still should be finding enough tanks in good conditions just because of the numbers. And when it comes to taking them from active service: same argument here: The US has so many they would not even miss them, I find numbers between 4-5k in active service in the US military... And all the arguments of them being in a safe geographic location and not really needing them apply just the same. I don't get your hostility all the time when talking to people who want the same thing as you, but just have different opinions on how to get there...
You don't address my points. You either ignore them, or you strawman them, as I've shown before. Like here where you attribute to me the argument that Leopards are 'THE' solution and arguing against that while I've explained why any tanks are useful, something you quote in the same message, for crying out loud. So, perhaps the 'hostility' is directed at how disrespectful your posts are.
Also, the debate is framed by reality, not by TL. We can discuss the merits of Leopards VS Ambrams all we want, but Ukraine needs everything they can get. And they'll get it too.
And, no, we don't need to pressure the US to give Abrams, they are the ones pushing for tanks to be sent and are preparing to send Abrams as we speak. In fact, they're delayed by the Ramstein format imposed on them by DE and FR. This was all posted with references by me in the thread days ago. So, instead of asking for references, read the ones I post.
Instead, you seem to be posting the DE position over and over, which amounts to: let's do as little of what UA asks as possible (and then cave to pressure, send the stuff anyway, but get no credit for it.)
P. S. Zatic, watch your language, you're supposed to be a mod.
|
On September 22 2022 00:31 Ghanburighan wrote:
You don't address my points. You either ignore them, or you strawman them, as I've shown before.
Proof? I am asking because it was not my intention to do so and I did assume that I addressed your points. I am genuinely trying to discuss things properly with you, but you always give me the impression of just talking down to me, just like here. You throw out a claim and I have nothing to check, I don't get sources, if I give sources they get ignored and as a bonus I get insulted every now and then... What am I supposed to do here? And ignoring points... come on, given that I had to force you to acknowledge my points and sources multiple times now this is pretty rich.
Like here where you attribute to me the argument that Leopards are 'THE' solution and arguing against that while I've explained why any tanks are useful, something you quote in the same message, for crying out loud. So, perhaps the 'hostility' is directed at how disrespectful your posts are.
I assume the irony of you calling people disrespectful is lost on you... But for what it is worth, if you felt disrespected by me in that post I genuinely apologize. The quote does have you claiming they make the most sense though, which is why I where my assumption came from... Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case clearing that up rather than once again trying to talk down would be a great way to help me understand you and your reasoning.
Also, the debate is framed by reality, not by TL. We can discuss the merits of Leopards VS Ambrams all we want, but Ukraine needs everything they can get. And they'll get it too.
And I discussed the merits of getting leopards in sufficient numbers under realistic assumptions.
And, no, we don't need to pressure the US to give Abrams, they are the ones pushing for tanks to be sent and are preparing to send Abrams as we speak. In fact, they're delayed by the Ramstein format imposed on them by DE and FR. This was all posted with references by me in the thread days ago. So, instead of asking for references, read the ones I post.
So... you don't want ukraine to have more tanks of a single kind and ease maintenance and logistics? I know you don't, but that is what this looks like. Why not direct your efforts at telling people how to get more abrahams? Why the insistance on leopards when getting them in any number seems so unlikely?
Also I don't live in this thread, I can miss stuff. People make mistakes.
Instead, you seem to be posting the DE position over and over, which amounts to: let's do as little of what UA asks as possible (and then cave to pressure, send the stuff anyway, but get no credit for it.)
No I have not. I have been advocating for germany to help in the best ways possible without ignoring reality since way back. You once again attack me for wanting the same as you essentially, but in different ways... You also find me criticising germany in this thread and questioning its decisions. But I am just not a zealot and like to stick to reality. I too am not happy with some of the token level support germany has given, but I also know they have made sizeable contributions as well, so I don't feel the need to act like they are doing nothing. And this type of shit is exactly what I believe will only lead to more token contributions. I believe a sizeable contribution of leopards that balances out their costs is too unlikely, hence I rather have those efforts be spend on something more effective. Or to phrase it in a more asshole way: I like to help rather than pretending to help.
And to beat the old drum, I would like you to be more charitable to the people you talk to in here because I get the impression you assume everyone who disagrees with you is either clueless or lying... and while I can understand hostility towards the latter, the former can be greatly addressed by sources and, once again, not being so damn hostile to everyone. Unless of course you care more about being seen as being correct than actually being correct, or convincing people of your ideas.
|
Forget it, his next post will be "i do not stand for the insult of my character by some people in the thread" and then he will continue to do the same thing again. There is nothing gained trying to argue with him.
Thankfully i am spared a visit of my inlaws the rest of the year, they are pseudo anti-war AFD voters and the bullshit they had to internalize in order to get to their new political position has got to have to hurt even them. On one hand, i would love to probe deep and just try to find out which propaganda and conspiracy theories they believe in. On the other hand, that would end with me screaming at my mother in law, so better to avoid them all together. But i am genuinely interested how the political message of those groups might change with Putins Russia getting their teeth kicked in. It's not like german rightwing fringes need Putins trolls to spew word garbage, but maybe Russia has to dial down the trolls and our fringes get more intelligent? Or, maybe Russia loses the war and then doubles down on influencing our racist family members. God i hope not.
|
On September 22 2022 01:48 Broetchenholer wrote:
Forget it, his next post will be "i do not stand for the insult of my character by some people in the thread" and then he will continue to do the same thing again. There is nothing gained trying to argue with him.
Thankfully i am spared a visit of my inlaws the rest of the year, they are pseudo anti-war AFD voters and the bullshit they had to internalize in order to get to their new political position has got to have to hurt even them. On one hand, i would love to probe deep and just try to find out which propaganda and conspiracy theories they believe in. On the other hand, that would end with me screaming at my mother in law, so better to avoid them all together. But i am genuinely interested how the political message of those groups might change with Putins Russia getting their teeth kicked in. It's not like german rightwing fringes need Putins trolls to spew word garbage, but maybe Russia has to dial down the trolls and our fringes get more intelligent? Or, maybe Russia loses the war and then doubles down on influencing our racist family members. God i hope not.
At the beginning of this war I was wondering if the freezing of russian assets and it becoming more difficult to pay stuff would lead to a measurable decrease in fake news, propaganda and the like that is usually done by troll farms or russian mouth pieces. So far I have not found anything like that, but such a study might need more time. If there is such a measurable change, I am sure some data science kobold is gonna dig it up in the near future.
|
Russian Federation27 Posts
I hope you guys, have good reasons to justify nazi insignia (but there is none), or maybe just blindly follow your news agenda.
You know, life,s been great, except it sucks now for everyone who has to go to war, protecting people of Donbass, and thanx your western leaders for that. Expected more from SC community. Anyway. GLHF
User was warned for this post
|
On September 22 2022 00:31 Ghanburighan wrote:
P. S. Zatic, watch your language, you're supposed to be a mod.
Dude you have been consistently hostile to basically everyone for roughly the last 200 pages. I've started routinely ignoring your posts because of it. Have a Saku or something and chiiiiill Winston
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
