1. #10581
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Amusingly, Russia apparently sanctioned "Joe Biden Sr."

    He's dead, that's the father of President Biden, who is actually Joe Biden Jr.

    Russia can't even get their damned sanctions right.
    Ahhh this his version of "only the best people."

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post

    My man you are legit being Shillcker. I legit think you are being dishonest and bad faith.
    You should, if primarycolor is the bar for cringe, high bar as it is, yeah he passes it.

  2. #10582
    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    A nuclear exchange between USA/Europe and Russia would end almost all human life on this planet. I honestly don't think some of you guys realize the gravity of what we're dealing here. There is no easy solution to what Russia is doing, aside from supporting Ukraine's effort in fighting back the invasion. Direct conflict with Russia makes the use of nukes on Ukrainian soil that much more likely. If that happens, it's game over. So long and thanks for all the fish.
    I would say it is more so because of people realizing the gravity of the situation but coming to the conclusion that other involved parties might as well. I am decidedly not saying that I know how things will play out - or would, if another path was chosen at any given moment. But I also do not believe that these sorts of events are as easy and deterministic as displayed here.

    For example, you say Using nukes on Ukrainian soil means game over. But does it really? The thing about nuclear exchanges between Nato and Russia, as you say, is that there are no winners there. You don't start nuking for gain, at least not on that level. That kind of fatal exchange is a scenario of all-out war of extermination, a desperate measure. The next person in the line of nuking, so to say, after a nuke going of on Ukrainian soil would know that too and deliberately pursue a course of action that would ultimately get them killed, most likely.

    I mean, that is what nuclear powers want you to believe, because that is the deterrent. But just because it is threatened does not mean it is deterministic. There is a reasonable chance that, say, even if a war between Poland and Russia started, that exchange might not happen. A lot of wars in history concluded without one side being obliterated. Heck, WWI Germany surrendered before they were even invaded. As long as, for example, Russia's existence is not threatened at the core, why would it start a nuclear exchange that would with almost certainly do exactly that?
    I mean, it is possible that a fatal chain of fear and miscalculation still leads to such an exchange. But I am not convinced that it just will deterministically happen.

  3. #10583
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiri View Post
    I would say it is more so because of people realizing the gravity of the situation but coming to the conclusion that other involved parties might as well. I am decidedly not saying that I know how things will play out - or would, if another path was chosen at any given moment. But I also do not believe that these sorts of events are as easy and deterministic as displayed here.

    For example, you say Using nukes on Ukrainian soil means game over. But does it really? The thing about nuclear exchanges between Nato and Russia, as you say, is that there are no winners there. You don't start nuking for gain, at least not on that level. That kind of fatal exchange is a scenario of all-out war of extermination, a desperate measure. The next person in the line of nuking, so to say, after a nuke going of on Ukrainian soil would know that too and deliberately pursue a course of action that would ultimately get them killed, most likely.

    I mean, that is what nuclear powers want you to believe, because that is the deterrent. But just because it is threatened does not mean it is deterministic. There is a reasonable chance that, say, even if a war between Poland and Russia started, that exchange might not happen. A lot of wars in history concluded without one side being obliterated. Heck, WWI Germany surrendered before they were even invaded. As long as, for example, Russia's existence is not threatened at the core, why would it start a nuclear exchange that would with almost certainly do exactly that?
    I mean, it is possible that a fatal chain of fear and miscalculation still leads to such an exchange. But I am not convinced that it just will deterministically happen.
    Would you take the risk ?

  4. #10584
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAmbient View Post

    What does this mean? I take it inscinated is a typo for instigated. Are they saying Putin actually arranged the protest?
    Yes, it means exactly that. Here is a Zelensky's party member (it's the ruling party), a deputy in Rada, being quite vocal about it:
    https://twitter.com/grishchukroma/st...00141159985157

    Personally - I don't have an opinion. It could be Kremlin's ploy, but the guy is... Nah, not gonna comment there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  5. #10585
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Next they are gonna drag up the George Bush Sr.
    Probably too scared to do so. Wouldn't be surprised if he pulled himself out of the grave to give them the finger if they tried.

  6. #10586
    Warchief Torched's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,247
    https://twitter.com/EmineDzheppar/st...2F20222235161d

    "Russian tank fires on a civilian who just stands nearby. As reported, it was an elderly person."

    What kind of a POS person do you have to be to actually do that wtf.

    EDIT: seems like it was a mortar shell and not the tank that hit him. Still fucking terrible.
    Last edited by Torched; 2022-03-15 at 10:21 PM.
    “A man will contend for a false faith stronger than he will a true one,” he observes. “The truth defends itself, but a falsehood must be defended by its adherents: first to prove it to themselves and secondly, that they may appear right in the estimation of their friends.”
    -The Acts of Pilate.

  7. #10587
    Russia lost alot of helicopters in Kherson today https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/s...64619932205065

    Don't put air assets in a unsupported forward position!

    Also they use the same tactic with these choppers on the airfield as i use in battleships, put all the battleships in the same corner and hope no one finds them.

  8. #10588
    3 million people have left Ukraine.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    Russia lost alot of helicopters in Kherson today https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/s...64619932205065

    Don't put air assets in a unsupported forward position!

    Also they use the same tactic with these choppers on the airfield as i use in battleships, put all the battleships in the same corner and hope no one finds them.
    Some. They already did claim fantastic ~30 frags couple of days ago - but no proof followed, especially after the satellite images started showing up. This is an airfield with lots of dead Ukrainian helis (by dead I mean incapable of flight, old decommed crap before the war, ex-soviet states are full of them laying around airfields). This time they did hit something. Most likely guess with Uragan or something of the kind.
    ~3 or so helis, plus likely something else is burning, fuel as the primary guess (lot of things to burn on an airfield), 7-8 heat points.
    Shrapnel possibly has damaged more vehicles. Nothing critical, but painful nonetheless for Russia.

    Do not underestimate constant live intel fed to Ukraine by NATO.
    Last edited by Easo; 2022-03-16 at 12:00 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  9. #10589
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiri View Post
    I would say it is more so because of people realizing the gravity of the situation but coming to the conclusion that other involved parties might as well. I am decidedly not saying that I know how things will play out - or would, if another path was chosen at any given moment. But I also do not believe that these sorts of events are as easy and deterministic as displayed here.

    For example, you say Using nukes on Ukrainian soil means game over. But does it really? The thing about nuclear exchanges between Nato and Russia, as you say, is that there are no winners there. You don't start nuking for gain, at least not on that level. That kind of fatal exchange is a scenario of all-out war of extermination, a desperate measure. The next person in the line of nuking, so to say, after a nuke going of on Ukrainian soil would know that too and deliberately pursue a course of action that would ultimately get them killed, most likely.

    I mean, that is what nuclear powers want you to believe, because that is the deterrent. But just because it is threatened does not mean it is deterministic. There is a reasonable chance that, say, even if a war between Poland and Russia started, that exchange might not happen. A lot of wars in history concluded without one side being obliterated. Heck, WWI Germany surrendered before they were even invaded. As long as, for example, Russia's existence is not threatened at the core, why would it start a nuclear exchange that would with almost certainly do exactly that?
    I mean, it is possible that a fatal chain of fear and miscalculation still leads to such an exchange. But I am not convinced that it just will deterministically happen.
    Yes, but that path of escalation is certainly visible in a war between Russia and the West.

    If Russia starts attacking NATO from Russian soil then NATO needs to strike at Russia to disable that threat. If Putin doesn't surrender you need to either entirely disable Russia's military industry, accept regular attacks or force a regime change. 2 of those 3 options lead to Russia facing an existential threat and a real danger of 'I have nothing to lose'.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  10. #10590
    Quote Originally Posted by Torched View Post
    https://twitter.com/EmineDzheppar/st...2F20222235161d

    "Russian tank fires on a civilian who just stands nearby. As reported, it was an elderly person."

    What kind of a POS person do you have to be to actually do that wtf.

    EDIT: seems like it was a mortar shell and not the tank that hit him. Still fucking terrible.
    Everything about it is horrifying. Shelling, bombing, sending tanks into civilian centers. Absolutely barbaric bullshit.

  11. #10591
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    Yes, but that path of escalation is certainly visible in a war between Russia and the West.

    If Russia starts attacking NATO from Russian soil then NATO needs to strike at Russia to disable that threat. If Putin doesn't surrender you need to either entirely disable Russia's military industry, accept regular attacks or force a regime change. 2 of those 3 options lead to Russia facing an existential threat and a real danger of 'I have nothing to lose'.
    Ehh, there are different schools of thought regarding NATO vs Russia scenario. It depends on multiple factors and Gaidax, while, erhm, disliked here, said something very important - there are A LOT of steps between full on nuclear war and whatever is happening right now.

    A relatively popular thought, at least I think it is by my observations, is that unless USA is driving Abrams to Moscow with the explicit goal of regime change it is very, very possible that no one will use nukes. It is not worth it. Eastern Europe and Western Russia becomes a conventional battlefield, but either side pushes for peace after winning the theatre (most likely NATO, if allowed to concentrate forces) to end the war ASAP. Read, MAD scenario does not apply because no one starts it in the first place.
    I subscribe to this one, honestly.

    Then you have to understand the basic human desire to not fucking die in a nuclear holocaust. Putin and Russian leadership as such would prefer to live (this guesswork is strengthened by their riches, what would be the point of getting them then?). I do not believe in the theory that they are hardcore ultranationalists who would rather watch the world burn than surrender. Some? Surely. But in general? No, too much to loose. People are not suicidal, normally...
    They are also aware that they would not be executed, Nuremberg times have long passed, thus they would live on after total defeat and surrender.

    Then there is a really unpopular one, but still - war does not escalate above use of tactical nukes. High risk of said escalation after use of the first one, but might also be a tacit agreement to use only those and otherwise fight the war conventionally.

    Of course, then there always is the opposite option - USA + allies ends Russia and Russia ends them in nuclear war right at the very start. Still absolutely possible because humans are very rational creatures as we all know

    TL;DR;
    WW3 might not happen even if NATO intervenes.

    So who is gonna go and find out whether basic logic and self-preservation applies? Who will call out bluffs? Better never find out...
    I do not believe no-fly zone will ever happen, nor other intervention. Even giving old MiG's to Ukraine made Poland shit bricks, anything more is clearly not gonna be acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapemask View Post
    Everything about it is horrifying. Shelling, bombing, sending tanks into civilian centers. Absolutely barbaric bullshit.
    Welcome to war, it sucks.
    Last edited by Easo; 2022-03-16 at 12:31 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  12. #10592
    Some better images of the Kherson airfield attack can be seen here. Quite a few burning helos as well as destroyed ones that might have been from the previous attack.

    The site that documents confirmed losses has Russian having lost 30 helos confirmed over the war, and 1350 vehicles all up, including 228 tanks. The true number will be higher as not all losses can be documented.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The US is considering providing Ukraine with Switchblade loitering missiles, along with other gear.

  13. #10593
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Some better images of the Kherson airfield attack can be seen here. Quite a few burning helos as well as destroyed ones that might have been from the previous attack.

    The site that documents confirmed losses has Russian having lost 30 helos confirmed over the war, and 1350 vehicles all up, including 228 tanks. The true number will be higher as not all losses can be documented.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The US is considering providing Ukraine with Switchblade loitering missiles, along with other gear.
    not sure how good those are vs armour but loitering munitions would make a huge difference

  14. #10594
    Scarab Lord Zaydin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    4,847
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    not sure how good those are vs armour but loitering munitions would make a huge difference
    There's supposedly two versions of the Switchblade; one meant for anti-personnel and the other anti-armor. The latter would be a huge boon for the Ukrainian military; supposedly the anti-infantry version can be built for about 6,000 dollars which is less than a Hellfire missile. For comparison, a Hellfire costs about 150,000 dollars per missile.
    "If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers

  15. #10595
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Wonder if their hosts are still gonna shill the, "But MAyBe iT Was uKAIniAn foRCeS!" shit, and if so what the actual journalists who work at Fox (there are a few!) will do in response.
    I periodically check the comments on Fox News and there seems to be very little support for Putin/Russia over there. Sentiment seems similar to the left, with most people wanting the U.S. to do more. Some minority comments asking why we are there in the first place.

    Honestly the war in Ukraine seems to be the political topic with the most bipartisan consensus...of the last decade.

  16. #10596
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    I periodically check the comments on Fox News and there seems to be very little support for Putin/Russia over there. Sentiment seems similar to the left, with most people wanting the U.S. to do more. Some minority comments asking why we are there in the first place.

    Honestly the war in Ukraine seems to be the political topic with the most bipartisan consensus...of the last decade.
    yeah right now the only loud Pro-Putin voices are the contrarian shills being paid to be contrarian shills, and crazy conspiracy nut-cases who may or may not even be real people.

  17. #10597
    Scarab Lord Zaydin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    4,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    Honestly the war in Ukraine seems to be the political topic with the most bipartisan consensus...of the last decade.
    It helps that it is a pretty black and white situation; Ukraine is defending itself against unprovoked Russian aggression.
    "If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers

  18. #10598
    Old God Kathranis's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    I periodically check the comments on Fox News and there seems to be very little support for Putin/Russia over there. Sentiment seems similar to the left, with most people wanting the U.S. to do more. Some minority comments asking why we are there in the first place.
    A lot of the Russian propaganda right now is focusing on poorly moderated right wing social media, like Telegram, Gettr, etc. As a result, it's mostly the same dipshits that buy into the Deep State and Covid-19 conspiracies that are getting drawn into it.

  19. #10599
    Pit Lord Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Yes yes, they totally are gonna kill her, sure, whatever. There are more insidious approaches for dealing with dissent. Destruction of opposition in Russia without basically any death is a proof of that.
    Given that Russia has carried out assassinations in NATO countries, even in recent years, makes your posts come off poorly. This is even more so when considering what occurred in Hong Kong, where China has publicly arrested protesters, only for some to die in custody, or shortly after being released, and having their deaths ruled as suicide, which helped take steam out of the domestic "Free Hong Kong" movement. That you appear to think that Russia killing notable dissidents is somehow unthinkable is a little silly.
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  20. #10600
    It appears that those, who could, are leaving Russia.

    Russian News Presenter Praised by Putin Resigns, Flees Country

    "I left [Russia] first because I was afraid they would not let me go just like that, then I submitted my resignation," she told Varlamov.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •