Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Unholyground]

I wonder how many of those hundred thousand North Korean troops will take the opportunity to defect.

All of them lol

[Liftbrul]

I'm thinking that sending North Korean troops is China's way of appeasing Russia.

I hardly think China needs to appease Russia. If anything, it's the other way around. And while China has North Korea on a fairly short leash, I don't think they exert enough influence to conscript a hundred thousand North Korean soldiers on Russia's behalf to send halfway across the world fight in some other despot's war. The logistics of it alone is far beyond what North Korea or Russia can do, and if China suddenly helps ferry all that meat to the front line, it wouldn't go unnoticed by anyone.

[Jastall]

I hardly think China needs to appease Russia. If anything, it's the other way around. And while China has North Korea on a fairly short leash, I don't think they exert enough influence to conscript a hundred thousand North Korean soldiers on Russia's behalf to send halfway across the world fight in some other despot's war. The logistics of it alone is far beyond what North Korea or Russia can do, and if China suddenly helps ferry all that meat to the front line, it wouldn't go unnoticed by anyone.

Yeah, I'm questioning the logistics behind that as well. NK definitely has no means of ferrying those soldiers by ships, and it seems supremely unlikely either China or Russia will give such a huge contingent a ride considering even these two are short in troop transport ships. So that means trains? Not even sure how feasible that is and it sounds like an enterprise that will take a good month at best, probably more, and Russia is short enough on supplies as it is to not want to waste them on brainwashed NK conscripts that have literally 0 combat experience across the entire army and are probably led by buffoons more used to clapping at party rallies, embezzling funds and licking their superior's boots than prosecuting an actual war. Although I guess that last part seemingly also applied to the Russian army.

Of course all this assumes 100k NK soldiers are actually intended to make it there eventually and it's not all just empty posturing and fodder for the Russian masses.

[Corvus]

Russia had previously claimed 40000 Syrians were going to join the war and they never turned up. This may be the same.

Russia does currently lease NK workers already. NK gets hard cash, Russia gets slave labour.

[Gorsameth]

Yeah I don't think this has anything to do with China really. It would be Russia paying premium prices for 100k bodies of cannon fodder because as said those NK troops have no combat experience and no Russian experience.
They are literally bodies being send to die in a meatgrinder.

At least with the supposed Syrians Russia was buying experienced soldiers who have been in conflicts and used to fighting over cities.

[Yunru]

Russan dies in this video:


But holy shit, why would you use a truck for military use that has a wheel just under. Imposible to survive landmine.

[Shadowferal]

McConnell gets win on Trump in NATO vote

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) clinched a victory on Wednesday when the Senate — including 48 of the chamber’s 50 Republicans — voted overwhelmingly to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO.

The resolution, which cleared the chamber in a bipartisan 95-1 vote, was a top priority for the Republican leader, who wanted to send a signal about the direction of a GOP that had drifted toward isolationism under former President Trump.

The GOP leader definitely won the battle, even if he lost Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the only member of either party in the Senate to vote “no.”

Most strikingly, Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) both shifted in their votes. The two were the only senators to vote against resolutions in 2017 and 2019 adding Montenegro and North Macedonia, respectively, to NATO.

On Finland and Sweden, the two libertarian-leaning lawmakers took a different stance: Lee voted for the resolution, and Paul voted present.

[Voidism]

McConnell gets win on Trump in NATO vote

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) clinched a victory on Wednesday when the Senate — including 48 of the chamber’s 50 Republicans — voted overwhelmingly to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO.

The resolution, which cleared the chamber in a bipartisan 95-1 vote, was a top priority for the Republican leader, who wanted to send a signal about the direction of a GOP that had drifted toward isolationism under former President Trump.

The GOP leader definitely won the battle, even if he lost Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), the only member of either party in the Senate to vote “no.”

Most strikingly, Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) both shifted in their votes. The two were the only senators to vote against resolutions in 2017 and 2019 adding Montenegro and North Macedonia, respectively, to NATO.

On Finland and Sweden, the two libertarian-leaning lawmakers took a different stance: Lee voted for the resolution, and Paul voted present.

Well, sounds good that they are moving away from Trumpitis but... I hope America can heal from the division that plagues it. That includes "both sides" btw. There's a need for unity against China and Russia.

[No Kings Voter]

Fuck it, we should trade Caleb Maupin and his merry band of fuckheads for Brittney.



CPI Opening Ceremony in Chicago on Saturday.

[Gorsameth]

Well, sounds good that they are moving away from Trumpitis but... I hope America can heal from the division that plagues it. That includes "both sides" btw. There's a need for unity against China and Russia.

a vote over the least controversial thing ever is hardly indicative of anything. The GOP is still very much the part of Trump. Because their voters are Trump voters.

[Kaleredar]

a vote over the least controversial thing ever is hardly indicative of anything. The GOP is still very much the part of Trump. Because their voters are Trump voters.

While your ultimate assessment is correct, I imagine that the GOP as a whole aren't keen on ceding any of their power to Russian influence, nor do I think the sort of red-scare mcarthyism have completely vanished from the party. Say what you will of such sentiments, but they're certainly anti-Russian. Of course I'm sure some of it is quite reactionary as well; American support for Ukraine is extremely high, and pushing a pro-Russia sentiment at this point would be a terrible move, politically.

Additionally, consider that American popular culture has been vilifying Russia for almost a century at this point. A few paid-off Russian lackeys like Trump weren't going to change that in a few years. And the whole war in Ukraine and the display of Russia's utter incompetency has basically completely sank the whole myth of "Russia is strong, manly country" 4chan-type meme that Trump was trying to straddle the erstwhile popularity of to help try and play off Russia's fairly obvious support of him.

[DarkTZeratul]

Fuck it, we should trade Caleb Maupin and his merry band of fuckheads for Brittney.



CPI Opening Ceremony in Chicago on Saturday.

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here.

[Edge-]

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here.

https://twitter.com/CPIUSA/status/1556011835844956161

It's apparently a very small crowd of losers in a rented, mostly empty hotel event room.

[Corvus]

An interesting tweet popped up from the Ukrainian MoD to celebrate Air Force Day, showing an image of an F-16 in Ukrainian camo. They don't have them - yet. But it looks a solid hint they are coming. Or maybe something else is going on.

It has been claimed Ukraine has been using AGM-88 HARM missiles against Russian SAM/Radar sites. These are air-launched missiles designed for Western planes, not Soviet era ones. They might have been jury-rigged to work on Ukrainian planes, or they might have been adapted to be ground launched. Or it might be Russian misinformation (but that one makes little sense.)

And the Kherson bridge was hit. Again. The Russians had deployed barges with weird radar spoofing devices. Except HIMARs doesn't use radar so they were useless. And the Russians had moved heavy equipment to the bridge to make repairs, laying large concrete slabs over the holes. Anyway, after last nights strikes, something was left burning on the bridge. Most likely the repair equipment. Crazy that the Ruscists would even attempt it knowing that they were in HIMARS range.

[Iphie]

An interesting tweet popped up from the Ukrainian MoD to celebrate Air Force Day, showing an image of an F-16 in Ukrainian camo. They don't have them - yet. But it looks a solid hint they are coming. Or maybe something else is going on.

It has been claimed Ukraine has been using AGM-88 HARM missiles against Russian SAM/Radar sites. These are air-launched missiles designed for Western planes, not Soviet era ones. They might have been jury-rigged to work on Ukrainian planes, or they might have been adapted to be ground launched. Or it might be Russian misinformation (but that one makes little sense.)

And the Kherson bridge was hit. Again. The Russians had deployed barges with weird radar spoofing devices. Except HIMARs doesn't use radar so they were useless. And the Russians had moved heavy equipment to the bridge to make repairs, laying large concrete slabs over the holes. Anyway, after last nights strikes, something was left burning on the bridge. Most likely the repair equipment. Crazy that the Ruscists would even attempt it knowing that they were in HIMARS range.

It seems very clear to me that russia wants to hold on to Kherson, and is willing to risk a lot for that. Including, apparently, risking the Donbas campaign as they're pulling units from there to reinforce the Kherson region. I'm not sure if that's the best plan.

The dam at Nova Kharkova can't be destroyed as that's a war crime if I'm correctly informed, however there is a small canal next to it to allow ships to pass it, there is a bridge there that could be destroyed, it is very close to the hydroelectric power plant though.

As for the F-16, I read yesterday that training wouldn't begin before 2023 or, at the earliest, late 2022, as the funds wouldn't be made available before then and they still needed to decide which planes the Ukrainians would be trained on.

[Kaleredar]

It seems very clear to me that russia wants to hold on to Kherson, and is willing to risk a lot for that. Including, apparently, risking the Donbas campaign as they're pulling units from there to reinforce the Kherson region. I'm not sure if that's the best plan.

As for the F-16, I read yesterday that training wouldn't begin before 2023 or, at the earliest, late 2022, as the funds wouldn't be made available before then and they still needed to decide which planes the Ukrainians would be trained on.

Are the Russians hoping they can rebuild the bridge more times than the Ukrainians can blow it up...?

Because frankly it seems to me that the days of labor required to rebuild a bridge are quite offset by the half a second it takes an explosive to blow it to hell.

[Corvus]

Are the Russians hoping they can rebuild the bridge more times than the Ukrainians can blow it up...?

Because frankly it seems to me that the days of labor required to rebuild a bridge are quite offset by the half a second it takes an explosive to blow it to hell.

Plus having the bridge repairing equipment destroyed slows it down even more. First you have to remove it, and then you have to ship in even more equipment to replace that which has just been destroyed.

What is happening in Kherson is interesting. Ukraine has been rather vocal about the upcoming counterattack there. They weren't trying to hide it - they were announcing it. And they were active in striking targets to facilitate it. And Russia has reacted accordingly, stripping large numbers of troops from the Donbas to reinforce Kherson, at least 15,000 by most estimates, despite the supply issues they are having with the bridges having been hit, the supply dumps taken out and trains being blown up.

Ukraine has sucked in a lot of Russians, so much so that Ukraine have been making gains around Izyum were the Russian troops have come from. Kherson may be a giant trap that Russia walked into willingly - or it could be a massive ruse on Ukraine's part to deceive Russia from where they are actually going to attack.

[Iphie]

Ukraine has sucked in a lot of Russians, so much so that Ukraine have been making gains around Izyum were the Russian troops have come from. Kherson may be a giant trap that Russia walked into willingly - or it could be a massive ruse on Ukraine's part to deceive Russia from where they are actually going to attack.

I really wouldn't put it beyond the Ukrainians, by spreading the russians thin they would have an easier time. I still think Kherson is the primary objective but I can see Izyum being a secondary objective as that would relieve the northern flank of the Donetsk defenders.

Meanwhile there's more reports of partisan activity coming in as well, as well as the usual speculations on putin's health (recently he was shown to be unable to use his right arm), russians defecting, deserting and refusing to fight. Most is probably wishful thinking but not all.

[Zaydin]

It seems very clear to me that russia wants to hold on to Kherson, and is willing to risk a lot for that. Including, apparently, risking the Donbas campaign as they're pulling units from there to reinforce the Kherson region. I'm not sure if that's the best plan.

The dam at Nova Kharkova can't be destroyed as that's a war crime if I'm correctly informed, however there is a small canal next to it to allow ships to pass it, there is a bridge there that could be destroyed, it is very close to the hydroelectric power plant though.

As for the F-16, I read yesterday that training wouldn't begin before 2023 or, at the earliest, late 2022, as the funds wouldn't be made available before then and they still needed to decide which planes the Ukrainians would be trained on.

Isn't Kherson one of the few, if not the only major city Russia has captured since Putler started this war? Ukraine retaking Kherson would be a humiliating blow to Putler to lose the one big 'prize' he has. Furthermore, Kherson is key to controlling the water flow into Crimea, so if Ukraine retakes the city you know they are going to shut off the water to Crimea. Retaking Kherson also would put Ukraine in a position to start striking targets in Crimea and, if the frontline moves forward enough, Ukraine could theoretically start hitting Sevastopol and that would force Russia to pull the Black Sea Fleet out to keep the whole fleet from being sunk by HIMARS/cruise missiles.

[Iphie]

Isn't Kherson one of the few, if not the only major city Russia has captured since Putler started this war? Ukraine retaking Kherson would be a humiliating blow to Putler to lose the one big 'prize' he has. Furthermore, Kherson is key to controlling the water flow into Crimea, so if Ukraine retakes the city you know they are going to shut off the water to Crimea. Retaking Kherson also would put Ukraine in a position to start striking targets in Crimea and, if the frontline moves forward enough, Ukraine could theoretically start hitting Sevastopol and that would force Russia to pull the Black Sea Fleet out to keep the whole fleet from being sunk by HIMARS/cruise missiles.

Pretty much, yes, though I suspect that the US will nix any notion of hitting Crimea with HIMARS munitions. As justified as we think it is for Ukraine to liberate Crimea it's just not worth it to risk an unpredictable response by russia. That's also the reason why Ukraine, by mouth of Zelenskyy, has demanded the return to the pre February 24th situation. Which leaves Crimea occupied and the Donbas region in Ukrainian hands.