| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1080 Posts
Putin looked bad, people in the west already wrote him off. Then he pulls the mobilisation, annexation + Show Spoiler + first time in world history a country is annexing territories it is retreating from, lol The reasonable people of power have been thrown out of windows, are under control or otherwise gone. Putin is a brutal dictator, Lyman proves it again. He has absolutely no problem sacrificing his people and many in the population are willing to sacrifice for him. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
DropBear
Australia4414 Posts
 | ||
|
Slydie
1975 Posts
It is obviously very scary if they manage to fire even one bomb, but I doubt that they are as capable as they claim to be, relying on outdated and unmaintained systems. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11919 Posts
On October 02 2022 18:30 Slydie wrote: Seeing the state of the Russian army, what do we know about their nuclear capabilities? It is obviously very scary if they manage to fire even one bomb, but I doubt that they are as capable as they claim to be, relying on outdated and unmaintained systems. Even if we assume that only 1 in 3 russian nuclear warheads actually reaches its target, that still means 2000 destroyed cities. | ||
|
FeatherPlanes
45 Posts
On October 02 2022 18:34 Magic Powers wrote: I just watched this analysis of how many tanks Russia may have left. Basically the prognosis is that Russia has roughly a year left, maybe two, before they run out of tanks. That's only considering the numbers, not quality. And chances are they'll run out of tank crews first. Also, the fact that so many of their tanks are still sitting idle after mobilization speaks volumes. So in reality maybe Russia will run out of operable tanks and tank crews much sooner. Yeah the quality is the real question. Uralvagonzavod apparently can't produce any more engines because they're completely dependent on imported parts and years of the Dutch disease has hollowed out their industries. See some pictures of atrocious barrels used in their artillery and the dubious origin of the tires used in many of their their vehicles. Chances are they have been harvesting tanks for parts for a long time because the COs have been stealing from the state so to speak. | ||
|
Vinekh
131 Posts
On October 02 2022 18:49 Simberto wrote: Even if we assume that only 1 in 3 russian nuclear warheads actually reaches its target, that still means 2000 destroyed cities. According to Wikipedia (Obviously we don't know the exact numbers), Russia has ~1600 strategic nukes. The rest are smaller tactical nukes ranging from 1 to 50 kT, which are not enough to level a city. Unless we are talking about small towns, but then why would they use a nuke for that. So realistically the number is lower. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On October 02 2022 07:54 plasmidghost wrote: Slightly related but I have started doing something I never thought I would have to: I'm writing deeply personal and final messages to send to the most important people in my life in the event nuclear weapons are deployed. I now live 25km from NATO headquarters. I'm essentially in range of the biggest target in Europe. If nukes fly, I am dead. At least I got to experience some happiness before then. Living in Paris, I find it reassuring. If nuclear war starts, it's only going to be my problem for 20min. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Even a tactical nuke in Ukraine is a fair bit away from that. Putin would have to be absolutely sure he has all the elites behind him otherwise he is going to be very vulnerable to a coup if he’s going down that route. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4628 Posts
I notice the majority of the forum thinks in our western context where we live already international life. Why russia does something -> the first question you need to answer is What effect does the said thing has on the national level. The war of Putin is a war of survival against internal threat. Having ex-dictators falling around russia without consequences makes Putin looks weak, therefor the consequences needs to be extreme for Ukraine. For northstream, if Putin falls and a new regime goes up. New regime will need to sell gaz to europe to finance renovation and whatever Russian will want to do... This would make sense from our perspective but in internal politic, not so much. Again we need to ask, how does it benefit internally. And the answer becomes obvious: Russia can blame the US for it. News can go around telling it is not a war with Ukraine, but US is attacking russia, and that is all they need to keep majority rallied or passive against the government. The government looks less bad if their failing are due to Force Majeur... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On October 02 2022 18:34 Magic Powers wrote: I just watched this analysis of how many tanks Russia may have left. Basically the prognosis is that Russia has roughly a year left, maybe two, before they run out of tanks. That's only considering the numbers, not quality. And chances are they'll run out of tank crews first. Also, the fact that so many of their tanks are still sitting idle after mobilization speaks volumes. So in reality maybe Russia will run out of operable tanks and tank crews much sooner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNNoaRp5lz0 I know that by the Spring it was being reported and even discovered by some Ukraine soldiers that Russian Tanks weren't even fully crewed. Some only having a driver, and a gunner. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9226 Posts
On October 02 2022 07:54 GreenHorizons wrote: To your point, there are several other European countries with motive and opportunity (and a lack of soft power) but they'd likely have needed the assurances of the US that it wouldn't come back hurt them/their NATO/EU relationship. Such as? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
On October 02 2022 21:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: On the domestic European front the US and Germany find themselves in a potential corner. I don't understand what the corner would be. Ukraine is definitely not joining NATO while in an active war against a nuclear power. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On October 02 2022 22:19 schaf wrote: I don't understand what the corner would be. Ukraine is definitely not joining NATO while in an active war against a nuclear power. More armaments, as well possibly being modern ones and supplies as well. Though I believe Ukraine has been getting Night Vision, and armored vests for a while now. Who has been supplying them one can only guess. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany598 Posts
On October 02 2022 22:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: More armaments, as well possibly being modern ones and supplies as well. Though I believe Ukraine has been getting Night Vision, and armored vests for a while now. Who has been supplying them one can only guess. The US did publicly them with night vision capability during the first half of this year iirc. Germany has provided some protective equipment like bodyarmour etc, but I think most of the countries have openly supplied protective equipment like that. | ||
|
skiekai
Italy51 Posts
Reality is Russian gas arrived in Austria, and Austria is blocking it for 'burocratic reasons'. But Russia is considered responsible for it. Every day it is like this: many half-truths, said in such a way as to modify their meanings I'm Italian. And all iternational information in Italy are USA-centerd. So if I should believe Italian media, Putin is the great devil, and Usa is fighting for democracy and freedom. But after 20 years of fact-checking (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria), I stopped to believe to mainsteam media, because it is like living in a TV serie with a meaningless plot. Full of villains (Gheddafi, Saddam, Osama, Putin) that commit crimes without any sense and with a good protagonist (USA) who has to intervene to bring justice. It's a sad fairy tale, but is not true. And the alternative story, the one written by the other side, is even sadder (because WE are the villains), but at least is realistic. So my humble opinion is: - Russia has not sabotaged their own infrastructure (in the same way as Russia has not stopped to send gas to Italy). - The atomic threat is real, but it will not be Russia to begin using it in Europe. - There is a deliberate will to force Europe in a forced energetic crisis, indipendent of the russian war. The USA prohibition to open north stream 2, the delays in turbine repairs, the sabotage of the north stream, the price increase regardless of the Russian price, all point in the same direction - I think it is grotesque that NATO categorically refuses to consider the possibility that Russian minorities can decide by whom they want to be governed. And continue to talk about justice and democracy. And I'm not just talking about now, but the years leading up to this war. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18356 Posts
On October 03 2022 00:21 skiekai wrote: All Italian media ara saying 'Russia has cut gas forniture to Italy' etc. etc. Reality is Russian gas arrived in Austria, and Austria is blocking it for 'burocratic reasons'. But Russia is considered responsible for it. Every day it is like this: many half-truths, said in such a way as to modify their meanings I'm Italian. And all iternational information in Italy are USA-centerd. So if I should believe Italian media, Putin is the great devil, and Usa is fighting for democracy and freedom. But after 20 years of fact-checking (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria), I stopped to believe to mainsteam media, because it is like living in a TV serie with a meaningless plot. Full of villains (Gheddafi, Saddam, Osama, Putin) that commit crimes without any sense and with a good protagonist (USA) who has to intervene to bring justice. It's a sad fairy tale, but is not true. And the alternative story, the one written by the other side, is even sadder (because WE are the villains), but at least is realistic. So my humble opinion is: - Russia has not sabotaged their own infrastructure (in the same way as Russia has not stopped to send gas to Italy). - The atomic threat is real, but it will not be Russia to begin using it in Europe. - There is a deliberate will to force Europe in a forced energetic crisis, indipendent of the russian war. The USA prohibition to open north stream 2, the delays in turbine repairs, the sabotage of the north stream, the price increase regardless of the Russian price, all point in the same direction - I think it is grotesque that NATO categorically refuses to consider the possibility that Russian minorities can decide by whom they want to be governed. And continue to talk about justice and democracy. And I'm not just talking about now, but the years leading up to this war. Just to be clear: Gazprom shut off the gas. It may be over bureaucracy involving Austria, but according to the Austrians it's the usual annual regulation update that Gazprom is refusing to sign. So either you think Austria is fucking Italy over by trying to change their regulations, or Gazprom is playing "dumb"... and intentionally stopped sending gas, citing a nonsense bureaucratic technicality. Now I know which of those two explanations I believe... | ||
KwarK
United States44180 Posts
On October 02 2022 18:49 Simberto wrote: Even if we assume that only 1 in 3 russian nuclear warheads actually reaches its target, that still means 2000 destroyed cities. Assuming no first strike. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
