Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Prosuper]

On 6/17/2024 at 12:44 PM, ClearedHot said:

The Ukrainians are taking out an S400 EVERYDAY...interesting to note the S400 we feared has some weaknesses afterall.

 

I remember in the 90s during Southern Watch it was known as an AWACS killer. Just listened to Peter Zeihan this morning, the Russian space program took a hit with a failed Soyuz launch, the crew made it through. They are running out of old ICBM boosters to get them to the ISS and are losing their ability to maintain their satellites in orbit now.  With Boeing looking bad with Starliner after $4 billion spent with a fixed contract, inability to give cost overruns to the taxpayers, it was their business model for years. Space X same contract $2 billion and they have Dragon a super reliable platform. No wonder General Atomics got the contract for the new NEACPs using a Boeing platform.

Edited June 25 by Prosuper
content

[BashiChuni]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13595327/Ukraine-CORRUPT-join-NATO-says-major-blow-Zelensky-boost-Putin.html
 

too corrupt to join nato but fuck it here’s 200 billion US taxpayer dollars. Lol. 
 

the cord cutting of Ukraine has begun. 

[Majestik Møøse]

Just move to Russia, dude.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Just move to Russia, dude.

a sign of a weak argument

[Clayton Bigsby]

Da, tovarischi

[MCO]

11 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

a sign of a weak argument

Or the realization there is no point arguing with you in this.

[Lawman]

Lot of video-bloggers with access and funding have been buying commercial satellite scans and doing what NGIC was doing from the get go of the conflict… counting hulls in storage yards.




In terms of “what does funding this war buy” well… in this example Russia will no longer have the equipment to provide the means to conduct offensive ground warfare against its neighbors in NATO. Unfortunately nobody is doing YouTube videos on similar losses of more critical systems like engineering vehicles or self propelled artillery, that would paint an even bleaker story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Lot of video-bloggers with access and funding have been buying commercial satellite scans and doing what NGIC was doing from the get go of the conflict… counting hulls in storage yards.




In terms of “what does funding this war buy” well… in this example Russia will no longer have the equipment to provide the means to conduct offensive ground warfare against its neighbors in NATO. Unfortunately nobody is doing YouTube videos on similar losses of more critical systems like engineering vehicles or self propelled artillery, that would paint an even bleaker story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How dare you bring logistics into a talk about warfare!  What do you think this place is?!  Task and Purpose?!

[Lawman]

How dare you bring logistics into a talk about warfare!  What do you think this place is?!  Task and Purpose?!

And next we can start talking about convergence windows…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

And next we can start talking about convergence windows…
 

As a graduate of the Army Airspace Control Course, my official response is:

Last I heard, they were preaching a coordination altitude in the Flight Levels.  Convergence windows?  HA!!   Let's face it, the Army's idea of coordination realistically boils down to:

"send it and find out"

With all that's developing right now, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Wiesbaden. 

Edited July 6 by FourFans

[Majestik Møøse]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

Lot of video-bloggers with access and funding have been buying commercial satellite scans and doing what NGIC was doing from the get go of the conflict… counting hulls in storage yards.




In terms of “what does funding this war buy” well… in this example Russia will no longer have the equipment to provide the means to conduct offensive ground warfare against its neighbors in NATO. Unfortunately nobody is doing YouTube videos on similar losses of more critical systems like engineering vehicles or self propelled artillery, that would paint an even bleaker story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But do you have a Daily Mail source?

[BashiChuni]

guys great news the war is being won now that the F-16s are here!

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/ukraine-russia-f16-jets-nato-summit

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

guys great news the war is being won now that the F-16s are here!

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/ukraine-russia-f16-jets-nato-summit

Bro, this war is going to enter it's 3rd year and Russia won't have made it 50 miles into Ukraine. Mark my words. Compare that to WWII and how much ground was taken. Compare it to Desert Storm, which was probably an equivalent challenge to taking Ukraine. This war is not going in Russia's direction. I don't know why you keep posting, but you're not convincing us, and it doesn't seem like you've posted enough to convince yourself. Yet. But keep going. Maybe your next post will convince all of us that Russia will eventually get there.

[BashiChuni]

bro, i don't think russia's goal is to occupy all of ukraine. i am convinced it is not in US interests to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a country no one gives AF about. putin is happy as a pig in mud to wear down ukranian manpower + equipment in a war of attrition.

[uhhello]

6 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

bro, i don't think russia's goal is to occupy all of ukraine. i am convinced it is not in US interests to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a country no one gives AF about. putin is happy as a pig in mud to wear down ukranian manpower + equipment in a war of attrition.

What does he gain by destroying his vaunted military to not occupy more ground?  

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

bro, i don't think russia's goal is to occupy all of ukraine. i am convinced it is not in US interests to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a country no one gives AF about. putin is happy as a pig in mud to wear down ukranian manpower + equipment in a war of attrition.

Well you're picking odd ways to make that point then. And Putin is picking an odd way to win a war. Why draw it out? If it was winnable? I'm curious to hear why you think it's in his strategic interest to lengthen a conflict he could win.

[BashiChuni]

that's a good question and i don't have the answer. my speculation is he wants to push just enough to remove ukraine as a military threat, but not hard enough to energize NATO to mobilize. all the while killing two birds with one stone by sucking in nato $ and equipment to weaken it. kind of like how we think we are blood letting russia (which i'm sure is true to an extent). i think he has the same thoughts. AND he knows western public opinion can focus on a topic for weeks and then it's on to the next outrage. plus european economies aren't exactly thriving right now. and look at france...lots of political turmoil.

i don't think his definition of winning is what the west thinks. the west thinks kiev....paris next. putin hasn't shown any desire to do that. i think putin wants a buffer from nato on his border. remember putin essentially had a peace deal with Z before it was sabotaged.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

why would he start negotiating with Z in 2022 just weeks after the start of invasion? bluff? maybe. but i think that shows limited objectives.

my main beef is this limited insight into our enemy makes for a very dangerous cocktail if either side makes the wrong move and the other side calls the bluff.

Edited July 11 by BashiChuni

[Majestik Møøse]

That’s a revisionist goal if I ever heard one. Putin wanted to take over Ukraine, made clear when he set his army off directly toward Kiev from the start. He got his shit pushed in and has gotten a quarter million Russian kids killed to save face. He’s a total shit head, probably because his dick is tiny.

[BashiChuni]

yeah all 200k of his army to invade ukraine. come on man you're smarter than that.

[Lawman]

All part of the 3D chess strategy Putin is using.

https://apple.news/AAuFDjRRhRKyggVc2Jhy06w

Man look at him weakening NATO. We’re gonna be in so much trouble….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StoleIt]

On 7/11/2024 at 11:44 AM, BashiChuni said:

i don't think his definition of winning is what the west thinks. the west thinks kiev....paris next. putin hasn't shown any desire to do that. i think putin wants a buffer from nato on his border. remember putin essentially had a peace deal with Z before it was sabotaged.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

Except Putin did try and take Kiev. "According to the British Ministry of Defence, Russian forces were 31 kilometres (19 mi) from the city-center of Kyiv (Source)."

Also, how was that peace deal sabotaged? I'm unable to read the article behind a paywall. But it seems like that peace deal resolved around Ukraine giving up rights to many territories and several other concessions to Russia.

[Clayton Bigsby]

[ViperStud]

6 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Except Putin did try and take Kiev. "According to the British Ministry of Defence, Russian forces were 31 kilometres (19 mi) from the city-center of Kyiv (Source)."

Also, how was that peace deal sabotaged? I'm unable to read the article behind a paywall. But it seems like that peace deal resolved around Ukraine giving up rights to many territories and several other concessions to Russia.

Their argument is that Boris Johnson tubed it. It’s clear he and Z met, but the content of their discussions is pure speculation. The Putin simps say he was promising unrestricted Western support (which he was/is in no position to do) and pushed for a prolonged war rather than peace. UKR had plenty of reason outside of BJ’s meeting to refuse all the concessions Russia was demanding - most of all the promise of neutrality after Russia had already invaded them twice after (A) promising security for giving nukes back and (B) the failure of the Minsk agreements. Kinda tough to blame UKR for not taking Putin at his word wrt peace deals. 
 

Where the Putin simp argument falls apart is when you ask them why not, after BJ’s “interference” with UKR, just have Russian forces about-face and take the capital. Fact is - they couldn’t. Losses were mounting and logistics were getting stretched thin. The typical Putin simp then bitches about NATO expansion, UKR war crimes that don’t exist and then eventually they start staring at their feet and whining about Comet Pizza.

[BashiChuni]

it's all explained here, but you idiots won't listen

46:45

 

1:06:00 peace deal scuttled

Edited July 13 by BashiChuni

[bfargin]

7 hours ago, ViperStud said:

words...

When one resorts to attempting to disparage those who disagree, they've lost the argument. It was pretty well known that UKR was willing to give a little for peace (early on). We might not have liked the potential agreement, but why interject and directly cause hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians to kill each other with no realistic end game (other than kill Russians)?

Your liberal western idealism is obscuring your ability to see the nuance in all of the long history of UKR vs. RUS relationship and of course the current conflict. I've not heard any cheerleaders for Putin, but many of us see the historical cause and effect of US and other western "powers" actions, and "situations" all over the world. We've screwed the pooch in just about every foreign policy decision over the past 20 plus years. 

I'm not (and neither is anybody else) cheering for others, but I'd like us as a nation to begin to slow our roll and at least spend a few minutes before making decisions that put our military members in indirect and direct harms way with no clear goals, no clear threat, consideration of 3rd and 4th order consequences, etc.