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 April 17 2022 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Russia has stated that any Soviet made weapons, or equipment cannot be sold or transferred to other countries without its' permission.
Every time they make one of these declarations they’re challenging the other party to show the world just how toothless Russian declarations are. At a certain point it moves into humiliation fetishism. Soon Putin will be on tv saying “ignore my protests harder daddy”.
On April 17 2022 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Russia has stated that any Soviet made weapons, or equipment cannot be sold or transferred to other countries without its' permission.
Every time they make one of these declarations they’re challenging the other party to show the world just how toothless Russian declarations are. At a certain point it moves into humiliation fetishism. Soon Putin will be on tv saying “ignore my protests harder daddy”.
Yeah exactly, didn't Zakharova more or less do just that with her drunken borscht rant ?
On April 16 2022 03:25 Mohdoo wrote: This ship was supposed to be not-shitty. 2 missiles somehow managed to connect and it sunk. Russians couldn't prevent the missiles, it only took 2 missiles, then they lied about it. Juicy and divine.
What do you mean not shitty? It's 70's tech. This ship was last updated in like 1982 and even then Russians didn't pay Ukraine for the modernization so some systems have been taken out and it's unclear if they were even replaced. I mean, Moskva's system could track 6 targets and provide guidance on 3 of them whereas some western cruisers of its class that are of more modern design can track 80 targets and provide guidance on 20-30.
Another thing is that its missile storage is terrible. Basically all modern missile ships are designed to expel all of the fire from the tubes outside of the ship in case rocket fuel catches fire (it's quite volatile and burns under water too) whereas Moskva had one central storage with 64 rockets and no way to contain/release the fire outside.
A lot of Russian tech is still Cold War era stuff, horribly outdated and outmatched by what NATO has. They do have some high tech and modern systems but those are few and far between (like 100 modern airplanes, a few subs, basically specialized long-range stuff that's not designed for standard warfare).
On another note, it seems like we're really going towards WW3 here...
As US and Japan are conducting joint naval warfare exercises on the Japan Sea some of Russian submarines are testing cruise missiles in the same area. And of course Chinese fleet decided to do exercises near Taiwan at the same time when US delegation is visiting there.
What in the hell is even going on in the world? Seems like everyone is stirring the pot...
I guess we'll have more answers after the weekend when full scale assault will probably start in Ukraine as hundreds of Russian mobile missile launchers are making their way west via train (at the time of writing this they should be about 20h train ride out of Kiyv).
I'd say that we haven't been this far from WWIII in a while.
Russia is economically and militarily crippled. China is also dealing with major domestic problems (economic and COVID related). And they are supposed to support each other, which they cannot do under the circumstances.
Essentially, this is why Finland and Sweden are joining NATO asap - there's nothing Russia can afford to do to them. It's just empty words and posturing.
This is a strange hot take. We have a power openly invading another country and a large one. Also, your logic on why people wont go to war is basically the opposite of histroy. Authoritari leaders have gone to war for thousands of years BECAUSE of problems at home not the opposite. It allows them to place blame on others and dictract their people from their own failures.
People are right to be scared of countries with big militaries, authoritarian rulers, imperialistic goals and rhetoric, domestic issues, and so on. Because these are the exact conditions that lead to invasion and war. Recent example Russia invading Ukraine.
Your logic is sound, but it doesn't fit the context. You can count troops. Russia doesn't have anything in reserves to start a war with. And that also means China doesn't have its most dependable ally. So we're safe, for now, courtesy of some very brave Ukrainians.
Safe is relative, that Russia can not win another ware let a lone the one they are in does not mean they can not shell the shit out another country or use "tactical" nukes.
You do not have rational actors here and their motivations are not logical. The logical thing was to make a big build up at the border and force concessions to not attack OR to move into the other already disrupted areas.
Thinking they have learned from this and won't make another mistake is not good logic from us because they have showed this is not how they act.
I think there might be a different viewpoint on this when you have extended land border with Russia. Baltics and Nordics are gonna be looking at the land forces that are normally stationed in garrisons nearby and counting man and machine casualties from those bases. The units normally stationed in Western Russia are the hard parts of their land forces, and if that spearhead is snapped in Ukraine they aren't ready to go anywhere for quite a while. Four million men in reserve doesn't translate into a threatening attacking force very effectively and Russia has had enough problems in coordinating much better trained and much smaller forces already. At least Finnish defense commentators are very much in agreement Ghanburigan's thinking.
On April 17 2022 05:42 JimmiC wrote: It would be a bad call, but their rhetoric is already changing from fighting Ukraine to fighting NATO because they can explain how its not going as well. Putin is completely willing to lose thousands and likely millions of Russians. He wins as long as he keeps power every other cost he seems willing to pay.
The problem is that Russia has no feasible way of winning against NATO. They're outmatched in every single aspect there. The only thing keeping NATO at bay is the threat of global nuclear war, because then everyone loses and we potentially even face human extinction. If there was a guarantee of no nukes being used NATO would steamroll Russia hard in quick order as they overmatch them in every category by a very, very large margin (consider the fact that combined NATO military spending is like 80 times that of Russia, despite individually every country having much smaller percent of their GDP dedicated towards it than Russia - UK alone has the same military budget as Russia despite them spending 2.7 instead of 4.3% of their GDP).
On April 16 2022 03:25 Mohdoo wrote: This ship was supposed to be not-shitty. 2 missiles somehow managed to connect and it sunk. Russians couldn't prevent the missiles, it only took 2 missiles, then they lied about it. Juicy and divine.
What do you mean not shitty? It's 70's tech. This ship was last updated in like 1982 and even then Russians didn't pay Ukraine for the modernization so some systems have been taken out and it's unclear if they were even replaced. I mean, Moskva's system could track 6 targets and provide guidance on 3 of them whereas some western cruisers of its class that are of more modern design can track 80 targets and provide guidance on 20-30.
Another thing is that its missile storage is terrible. Basically all modern missile ships are designed to expel all of the fire from the tubes outside of the ship in case rocket fuel catches fire (it's quite volatile and burns under water too) whereas Moskva had one central storage with 64 rockets and no way to contain/release the fire outside.
A lot of Russian tech is still Cold War era stuff, horribly outdated and outmatched by what NATO has. They do have some high tech and modern systems but those are few and far between (like 100 modern airplanes, a few subs, basically specialized long-range stuff that's not designed for standard warfare).
On another note, it seems like we're really going towards WW3 here...
As US and Japan are conducting joint naval warfare exercises on the Japan Sea some of Russian submarines are testing cruise missiles in the same area. And of course Chinese fleet decided to do exercises near Taiwan at the same time when US delegation is visiting there.
What in the hell is even going on in the world? Seems like everyone is stirring the pot...
I guess we'll have more answers after the weekend when full scale assault will probably start in Ukraine as hundreds of Russian mobile missile launchers are making their way west via train (at the time of writing this they should be about 20h train ride out of Kiyv).
I'd say that we haven't been this far from WWIII in a while.
Russia is economically and militarily crippled. China is also dealing with major domestic problems (economic and COVID related). And they are supposed to support each other, which they cannot do under the circumstances.
Essentially, this is why Finland and Sweden are joining NATO asap - there's nothing Russia can afford to do to them. It's just empty words and posturing.
This is a strange hot take. We have a power openly invading another country and a large one. Also, your logic on why people wont go to war is basically the opposite of histroy. Authoritari leaders have gone to war for thousands of years BECAUSE of problems at home not the opposite. It allows them to place blame on others and dictract their people from their own failures.
People are right to be scared of countries with big militaries, authoritarian rulers, imperialistic goals and rhetoric, domestic issues, and so on. Because these are the exact conditions that lead to invasion and war. Recent example Russia invading Ukraine.
Your logic is sound, but it doesn't fit the context. You can count troops. Russia doesn't have anything in reserves to start a war with. And that also means China doesn't have its most dependable ally. So we're safe, for now, courtesy of some very brave Ukrainians.
Safe is relative, that Russia can not win another ware let a lone the one they are in does not mean they can not shell the shit out another country or use "tactical" nukes.
You do not have rational actors here and their motivations are not logical. The logical thing was to make a big build up at the border and force concessions to not attack OR to move into the other already disrupted areas.
Thinking they have learned from this and won't make another mistake is not good logic from us because they have showed this is not how they act.
I think there might be a different viewpoint on this when you have extended land border with Russia. Baltics and Nordics are gonna be looking at the land forces that are normally stationed in garrisons nearby and counting man and machine casualties from those bases. The units normally stationed in Western Russia are the hard parts of their land forces, and if that spearhead is snapped in Ukraine they aren't ready to go anywhere for quite a while. Four million men in reserve doesn't translate into a threatening attacking force very effectively and Russia has had enough problems in coordinating much better trained and much smaller forces already. At least Finnish defense commentators are very much in agreement Ghanburigan's thinking.
I get all the logic, but those were also everything the people were saying before they over attacked Ukraine.
It would be a bad call, but their rhetoric is already changing from fighting Ukraine to fighting NATO because they can explain how its not going as well. Putin is completely willing to lose thousands and likely millions of Russians. He wins as long as he keeps power every other cost he seems willing to pay.
He is much better at brinkmanship because he knows that basically all he is going to lose is equiptment and soldiers in other places, no western country is willing to pay the price of invading Russia.
I think we're almost in agreement here.
Let's use the UA invasion as an example. There we were much closer to WWIII because attacking UA was seen as suicidal for Putin, but possible due to Putin believing the West to be historically divided and UA weak. It became clear in days that both of those assumptions were wrong, but those false assumptions made the deterrent ineffective. And there was a non-zero chance of NATO intervention in the beginning (the no-fly zone was even discussed at the NAC). Now, NATO won't intervene or escalate (RU has hit NATO territory, btw, we've ignored it) because we don't have to. UA will thwart the Russian invasion one way or another. It's just a question of when and at what cost.
If you look at RU policy on using tactical nukes, it's to hold territory. A commonly understood plan would be to invade the Baltics and use nukes in Kaliningrad to block reinforcing armies from NATO allies from helping them by nuking parts of Poland and the Baltic Sea. But, without the invasion, the use of those nukes doesn't make sense. The world could even ignore their use militarily and just ramp up economic and diplomatic sanctions to levels nobody has even thought about before. Even China would join if Russia just started lobbing nukes around. They're a defensive or area denial weapon, they aren't useful on offense. So, without troops able to invade, tactical nukes are also toothless.
And even if Russia declared war or mobilization, it probably doesn't help them. They've already stopped producing much of their heavy military equipment due to shortages caused by sanctions. Russia will probably need several (5-10?) years of unimpeded production to build even the same force they sent to UA. NATO has also exposed major holes in RU intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities, and that research + production will probably take even longer.
Edit: I thought I'd add a conclusion. I see RU as neutralized in terms of capabilities and without options for brinkmanship which would force NATO to intervene or escalate. They will continue to North-Koreanize, with the attached antics. But the world has successfully ignored North Korea for decades now.
I think that there is too much focus on outside factors, like possibility of China joining the sanctions, when speculating about Russias next move. This is understandable because we have so little information on how the inner politics of Kreml work. We really do not know what are the expectations of the pro war Russians and Putins advisors at this point. Questions like, do they expect their military to win before end of summer or after the next year, will probably be the key to their actions. Lower their expectations are the better for outsiders probably. However, if the war keeps going poorly and heads keep rolling Putin eventual either loses support or will try options that where off the table before. The timeline for this can be a month or a few years depending of the state of inner politics.
I don't understand what Germany has to do with your post. Hasn't Germany given a comparitive amount of military and humanitarian aid? Thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons as well as one of the few countries to send military vehicles. They just aren't as loud as some other countries about it.
Anyhow I'll be wary of declaring Russia is already depleted in manpower. For all we know, the Kremlin could be fine with a forever war; afterall it wouldn't be them or their sons who will be at the frontlines in the war.
On April 17 2022 23:28 Ghanburighan wrote: If you're wondering why France and Germany have a bad rep. in Ukraine. It's a continuous trickle of the little things like this one.
They sent all their reserves without checking the date on purpose to get it there asap from what I've read. Ukraine was supposed to check the date themselves.
I understand not wanting to resort to nuclear armageddon but the first use of a nuclear weapon since the end of ww2 should not be met with a 'meh whatever'. Nuclear weapons, big or small should never be acceptable and the way you ensure that is by making it clear that using a nuclear weapon will be your end.
The problem with 'a conventional response' is that its not going to be a full scale invasion of Russia with the aim to end Putin's regime by force, because that would risk nukes. So your already down to at most actively moving forces in to protect Ukraine. If Putin were to already be desperate enough to resort to a nuke I don't think that is enough deterrent. He would basically have nothing to lose by trying it.
(Prefacing this post with the fact I am deeply pro-Ukrainian) I think there's very little risk of Putin nuking Kyiv - he sees himself on a par with Lenin and wants to be perceived as the one who brought the origins of the Russian nation back in the motherland. Images of a nuclear fallout there would go very poorly even on RT (especially given how many Russians have Ukrainian family connections), would be impossible to spin as Ukrainian self-inflicted, and would quite possibly topple him in a hurry.
Before that level of escalation, he would've gone and actively shelled the center town similarly to Irpin and whilst the Russian army did have many logistical issues there it's fairly obvious they've been holding back there, compared to what they did in the East.
Defence Minister Shoigu (the ultimate yes-man) just suffered one of those Soviet times heart attacks, generals are being jailed left right and center, and the FSB has reportedly been in shambles. So between that and the recent sinking of the Moskva, there is a very good chance that unless Vlad's completely lost it he knows full well he can't trust his chain of command to execute anything sensitive.
On April 18 2022 03:00 MyLovelyLurker wrote: (Prefacing this post with the fact I am deeply pro-Ukrainian) I think there's very little risk of Putin nuking Kyiv - he sees himself on a par with Lenin and wants to be perceived as the one who brought the origins of the Russian nation back in the motherland. Images of a nuclear fallout there would go very poorly even on RT (especially given how many Russians have Ukrainian family connections), would be impossible to spin as Ukrainian self-inflicted, and would quite possibly topple him in a hurry.
Before that level of escalation, he would've gone and actively shelled the center town similarly to Irpin and whilst the Russian army did have many logistical issues there it's fairly obvious they've been holding back there, compared to what they did in the East.
Defence Minister Shoigu (the ultimate yes-man) just suffered one of those Soviet times heart attacks, generals are being jailed left right and center, and the FSB has reportedly been in shambles. So between that and the recent sinking of the Moskva, there is a very good chance that unless Vlad's completely lost it he knows full well he can't trust his chain of command to execute anything sensitive.
Well according to Russia Minister Shoigu suffered from a massive Heart attack from "unnatural sources" whatever that means. Whether it was deliberate or by sheer stress, keep in mind it was Shoigu who was at the table when Putin ordered the country's nukes to be prepared which Shoigu looked stunned and even shocked by the order.
On April 18 2022 03:00 MyLovelyLurker wrote: (Prefacing this post with the fact I am deeply pro-Ukrainian) I think there's very little risk of Putin nuking Kyiv - he sees himself on a par with Lenin and wants to be perceived as the one who brought the origins of the Russian nation back in the motherland. Images of a nuclear fallout there would go very poorly even on RT (especially given how many Russians have Ukrainian family connections), would be impossible to spin as Ukrainian self-inflicted, and would quite possibly topple him in a hurry.
Before that level of escalation, he would've gone and actively shelled the center town similarly to Irpin and whilst the Russian army did have many logistical issues there it's fairly obvious they've been holding back there, compared to what they did in the East.
Defence Minister Shoigu (the ultimate yes-man) just suffered one of those Soviet times heart attacks, generals are being jailed left right and center, and the FSB has reportedly been in shambles. So between that and the recent sinking of the Moskva, there is a very good chance that unless Vlad's completely lost it he knows full well he can't trust his chain of command to execute anything sensitive.
Well according to Russia Minister Shoigu suffered from a massive Heart attack from "unnatural sources" whatever that means. Whether it was deliberate or by sheer stress, keep in mind it was Shoigu who was at the table when Putin ordered the country's nukes to be prepared which Shoigu looked stunned and even shocked by the order.
Tbf, Shoigu always looks like he was just asked to recite a poem in front of class which he hadn't learned.
First potential pictures of Moskva sinking. Authenticity is not yet verified (but it's hard to imagine what else this might be). Pics suggest the large missiles on the front side of the ship exploded.
Nope, the burning section is aft of the large missile tubes; you could vaguely see the intact tubes through the smoke. OTOH the black area at the waterline (just below the fire) looks like an entry hole? I think the hull on its left edge appears caved in a bit.
IMO the ship could have been shot with Harpoon or whatever anti-ship missile the West supplied clandestinely. Would explain the lack of Neptune launch pics/videos like the Ukraine usually shows for their victories, and US intel being weirdly reserved on the incident.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/G04xBYT.png)
