|
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. |
On September 23 2022 23:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 22:31 KwarK wrote:
I thought Spain said that their leopards have been so poorly maintained that sending them would be sabotage of the Ukrainian war effort. I was referring to this interview with Anton Hofreiter (an MP with the Greens/chair of the Bundestag's European affairs committee). According to Reddit, he said that Spain was willing to send the tanks and Germany blocked that. My German is really rusty, so our German friends are free to confirm that. I don't know if what he said is true.
In that snippet, he claims that he personally heard from very good sources that spain wants to send tanks, but wasn't allowed to by Germany. The other guy disagrees and says that that is not correct.
|
On September 23 2022 22:55 Simberto wrote:
I am increasingly confused as to why exactly Scholz does not want to send more to Ukraine. I have yet to see an actual reasoning for that. It is really strange.
If he has a good reason, he should be able to give it. Since he doesn't really give any reasons whatsoever, but is very insistant on not sending tanks, there must be some good but shitty reason that influences his decisionsmaking, but which he does not want people to know. Something something, Russian money, something something.
There is no valid reason for Germany to not want to supply Ukraine. German could send every last single tank they own and it would make no difference to 'national security'.
|
I mean, i can understand not wanting to completely gut the Bundeswehr. That is reasonable. If we sent everything (or most), that would probably cripple the Bundeswehr for a generation, because no equipment also means no people trained on that equipment.
But that does not mean that we shouldn't send anything, and it especially does not mean that we shouldn't allow all other nations to send as many of their own Leopards as they want to. The west combined should be very capable of sending more weapons than Ukraine could reasonably use without really reducing threatening our own military, simply due to the absurd amount of industrial might behind NATO. And we should. Make them promise to send some of it back if it still exists after Russia is defeated if you really want to.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
First mobilized soldiers are already being depoyed to the training grounds
https://t.me/historywarweapon/16491
Seems that I would need to check in military comissariat as well, found mobilization prescription back from 2015 (completely forgot it was there). These a generally given for the homefront duties (mostly giving out mobilization notices, as it is prescribed in mine) in case of mobilization, so the staff handling mobilization would arrive at recruitment points immediately. You obliged to appear yourself without further notice in case of mobilization, or you could face criminal charges.
Mine was stated to be in a local school. I guess when they gave it me back in 2015, it was in case of full-scale mobilization, and this school supposed to be a recruitment point, but when I showed up today, staff there (up to the principal) was unaware of anything like that, and redirected me to comissariat. Most likely they would send me back (third health category and no serving experience), but should take a backpack of stuff with me just in case.
|
On September 23 2022 23:33 Ardias wrote:First mobilized soldiers are already being depoyed to the training grounds https://t.me/historywarweapon/16491Seems that I would need to check in military comissariat as well, found mobilization prescription back from 2015 (completely forgot it was there). These a generally given for the homefront duties (mostly giving out mobilization notices, as it is prescribed in mine) in case of mobilization, so the staff handling mobilization would arrive at recruitment points immediately. You obliged to appear yourself without further notice in case of mobilization, or you could face criminal charges. Mine was stated to be in a local school. I guess when they gave it me back in 2015, it was in case of full-scale mobilization, and this school supposed to be a recruitment point, but when I showed up today, staff there (up to the principal) was unaware of anything like that, and redirected me to comissariat. Most likely they would send me back (third health category and no serving experience), but should take a backpack of stuff with me just in case.
I was just about to ask how you're doing.
Reports coming out of RU are saying that it's not really a partial mobilization. They're just grabbing anyone they can to fill the quota and the quotas are larger than 300k. There are videos of old men with no prior experience being taken, and people with serious health concerns. Very fluid info, but a cause for caution.
I would do everything in my power to at least delay. Perhaps they'll fill the quota before you arrive. You have many more tools available to you before you enter the army. Don't become cannon fodder without due consideration, please.
Just as supporting information, here's a thread in Finnish saying that RU doesn't have mobilization lists anymore, so they're taking anyone.
+ Show Spoiler +
P.S. Google doesn't know "liikekannallepano" means "mobilization"
|
Video from a mobilization point. Feels like they are just ripping randoms from their jobs
|
On September 23 2022 13:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:52 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with.
While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit.
As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I still do understand your point. The reason people do not use nukes is not because of how awful they are, people are willing to do all sorts of awful things to win wars and hurt their enemies. It is because they are assured that if they do, them and everyone they love will die. Using them gaurantees a loss for everyone. The only time they were used was before this was true, the US could use them because no one else could use them back. Right and this makes it (i know you are not even defending it) somehow reasonable? I mean in WW2 i can see the first one reasonable in some way, cripple Japan to end the shit, but the second one? Never. After you see the devastation of the shit that bomb caused you should have been really sorry no matter how enemy the country is and stop that shit. It's just my opinion though, but i like people. You’re way too caught up on the nuclear part. The nuking of cities was a lesser crime than the fire bombing of Tokyo by any metric. If destroying cities was going to end the war they’d have surrendered after Tokyo. They surrendered because of the Soviet entry to the war, the Japanese government was fine with the destruction of cities. Nagasaki wasn’t somehow too much loss, they’d endured much worse without breaking. They weren’t about to break from Hiroshima alone, just as they hadn’t from all the cities previously destroyed.
Not a one thing is correct here. The "they were scared of the Soviets" hypothesis is propagated by Ward Wilson, loud opponent of nuclear armament as his argument against "but a bomb ended war".
In fact, it was not a "gouverment of Japan" that surrended, because "super-duper-soviet-ubersoldiers attacked their useless and isolated kwantung army in Manchuqo". There was no consensus in japanese gouverment and "warhawks" were as strong as "peace camp". The decision was made by emperor Hirohito himself after long and angry discussion, and his main arguments were- surprise! surprise! - suffering of japanese civilians, hopeless situation on all fronts and - surprise! surprise! - use of atom bombs on japanese cities.
|
Its just amazing to me that stuff like this is allowed. It feels like the law means nothing in Russia.
The US has many problems but I feel like theres at least laws even if they arent equally enforced. It seems like Russia is purely a totalitarian state. Not even trying to give the appearance of rule of law.
|
On September 23 2022 23:54 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 13:27 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 12:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:52 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I still do understand your point. The reason people do not use nukes is not because of how awful they are, people are willing to do all sorts of awful things to win wars and hurt their enemies. It is because they are assured that if they do, them and everyone they love will die. Using them gaurantees a loss for everyone. The only time they were used was before this was true, the US could use them because no one else could use them back. Right and this makes it (i know you are not even defending it) somehow reasonable? I mean in WW2 i can see the first one reasonable in some way, cripple Japan to end the shit, but the second one? Never. After you see the devastation of the shit that bomb caused you should have been really sorry no matter how enemy the country is and stop that shit. It's just my opinion though, but i like people. You’re way too caught up on the nuclear part. The nuking of cities was a lesser crime than the fire bombing of Tokyo by any metric. If destroying cities was going to end the war they’d have surrendered after Tokyo. They surrendered because of the Soviet entry to the war, the Japanese government was fine with the destruction of cities. Nagasaki wasn’t somehow too much loss, they’d endured much worse without breaking. They weren’t about to break from Hiroshima alone, just as they hadn’t from all the cities previously destroyed. Not a one thing is correct here. The "they were scared of the Soviets" hypothesis is propagated by Ward Wilson, loud opponent of nuclear armament as his argument against "but a bomb ended war". In fact, it was not a "gouverment of Japan" that surrended, because "super-duper-soviet-ubersoldiers attacked their useless and isolated kwantung army in Manchuqo". There was no consensus in japanese gouverment and "warhawks" were as strong as "peace camp". The decision was made by emperor Hirohito himself after long and angry discussion, and his main arguments were- surprise! surprise! - suffering of japanese civilians, hopeless situation on all fronts and - surprise! surprise! - use of atom bombs on japanese cities.
For the people who want to seriously debate the dropping of the atomic bombs, I suggest using this list as a reference, pick the sources that disagrees the most with your viewpoint, read them, and if you still feel strongly, make a new thread. It is a very complex and still highly debated topic and for both theories and everything in between you will find plenty credible sources.
|
Ardias, or others too, do you know if the conscription is still focused on areas away from the big affluent cities of the west? My thinking is that as long as muscovites or St Petersburgians aren't recruited, Russia is treating this as an expedition. If they start actually recruiting the rich and the powerful (or their offspring, mainly) then I'd get very worried about what the next level of escalation could be.
|
On September 23 2022 23:33 Ardias wrote:First mobilized soldiers are already being depoyed to the training grounds https://t.me/historywarweapon/16491Seems that I would need to check in military comissariat as well, found mobilization prescription back from 2015 (completely forgot it was there). These a generally given for the homefront duties (mostly giving out mobilization notices, as it is prescribed in mine) in case of mobilization, so the staff handling mobilization would arrive at recruitment points immediately. You obliged to appear yourself without further notice in case of mobilization, or you could face criminal charges. Mine was stated to be in a local school. I guess when they gave it me back in 2015, it was in case of full-scale mobilization, and this school supposed to be a recruitment point, but when I showed up today, staff there (up to the principal) was unaware of anything like that, and redirected me to comissariat. Most likely they would send me back (third health category and no serving experience), but should take a backpack of stuff with me just in case.
I genuinely hope you don't get injured or worse, especially for the sake of Putin
|
Agreed. Out of all the causes one could be dieing for, Putins war must be one of the stupidest. I hope that you do not get forced into that war, Ardias.
|
|
|
On September 23 2022 23:59 Sadist wrote:Its just amazing to me that stuff like this is allowed. It feels like the law means nothing in Russia. The US has many problems but I feel like theres at least laws even if they arent equally enforced. It seems like Russia is purely a totalitarian state. Not even trying to give the appearance of rule of law.
Russia is and always has been totalitarian ever since communist revolution. That's the last 100 years. Before that it was run by a tsar (king), so Russia was never a true democracy as far as I know. Also, regular Russians were very poor at the end of monarchy / beginning of communist revolution. During communist regime, just like any other communist country, "everyone was equally miserable" I'd assume. So, imagine if you have a poor person and you try to sanction him. That person is still poor. That's why there wasn't massive outcry after western sanctions but add partial mobilisation to that and now you have a lot of unhappy people. Possibly still not enough to oust Putin but once body bags start to show up in Russia, we might see a change of regime. I hope so at least... we'll see. 
Edit: If you want to have a glimpse of Russia while watching really funny videos, I recommend these:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On September 24 2022 02:14 Oukka wrote:
Ardias, or others too, do you know if the conscription is still focused on areas away from the big affluent cities of the west? My thinking is that as long as muscovites or St Petersburgians aren't recruited, Russia is treating this as an expedition. If they start actually recruiting the rich and the powerful (or their offspring, mainly) then I'd get very worried about what the next level of escalation could be.
Heard from Russian web:
Partial mobilization means only the people without money or without connections have to go.
This is also what full mobilization means.
|
It's partial because they only get partially trained and equipped and then return in parts. In Russia, they dubbed it "mogilizatsya" (mogila = grave).
|
On September 24 2022 04:03 maybenexttime wrote:
It's partial because they only get partially trained and equipped and then return in parts. In Russia, they dubbed it "mogilizatsya" (mogila = grave).
Let me clarify it to English speaking audience since we share cyrillic with Russians and they may not get it. :D
English - Russian
mobilisation - мобилизация (Latin: mobilizatsiya)
tomb - могила (Latin: mogila)
Then, as you said, mogilizatsiya (mogila = grave)
|
|
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
Well, I had a long talk with my folks and my friends, and, at the end, together with my friend I've mentioned before , veteran of the 2nd Chechen war, we are gonna to attend military comissariat today's morning. It seems that they give some time to gather your belongings and report, if they recruit you, so I may answer you all today/tommorow, maybe they'll just send me back to my apartment.
|
On September 24 2022 08:27 Ardias wrote:
Well, I had a long talk with my folks and my friends, and, at the end, together with my friend I've mentioned before , veteran of the 2nd Chechen war, we are gonna to attend military comissariat today's morning. It seems that they give some time to gather your belongings and report, if they recruit you, so I may answer you all today/tommorow, maybe they'll just send me back to my apartment.
I hope it's the latter, I really do
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
