|
Small White Dragon posted:So I'm just curious about this then -- Is Finland accepting refugees from Russia, or is the expectation that a bunch of people are overstaying their visa or using it as a jumping to elsewhere in Europe/the west? There is no consensus on this one yet. At least all new student Visas are now shut down, so it is not likely that we will accept refugees unless they already have relatives with permanent residence. All Ukrainians are welcomed, though.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
DeliciousPatriotism posted:
I reported a post where someone said we just support ukraine because "liberals love jews" about Zelenskyy but nothing came of it. There being a D&D thread and a Cspam thread about everything is kinda a thing but that specific thread is so 4chan ironic nazi it's amazing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Old people are hell bent on dying in a nuclear apocalypse it seems. I realize this is not going to be popular, but I disagree with this thread screaming that a no fly zone would inevitably lead into a nuclear apocalypse. Now, I'm under no illusions a NFZ is some sort of magic end the war trick. I totally agree that it's basically an ultimatum to Putin that he can either withdraw from Ukraine or be at war with the US. From there, if he chooses not to withdraw it turns into a shooting war. From there the US could focus on stopping the invasion at the Ukrainian border or prosecute a land war into Russia I guess (I don't see the latter happening). If an invasion of Russia happens, Putin maybe chooses to launch nukes which becomes a global nuclear war. That's not impossible, but it seems like a whole lot of low order chances between a no fly zone and an actual nuclear apocalypse. Now, very low odds of a nuclear war is still a really bad thing and I'm not exactly supporting a NFZ here, but this thread seems to think NFZ = inevitable nuclear war and I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Looks like they're getting ready to for Convoy 2: Diesel Bugaloo That other tweet you had was old but really good can you post it again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:02
|
|
Play posted:However, what I DO agree with is refusing to say that it is categorically off the table. I don't see the harm in letting that remain an unknown, and giving Putin something to think about if he really goes off the rails in Ukraine. At what point would you want to start WW3 with thermonuclear war a distinct possibility? If an city gets the Aleppo treatment? Let's be clear here, a functioning no fly zone would require NATO to bombard Russian AA systems in RUSSIA, as they otherwise can't police the sky over neighbouring Ukraine without fear of being targeted by said Russian systems.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I reported a post where someone said we just support ukraine because "liberals love jews" about Zelenskyy but nothing came of it. There being a D&D thread and a Cspam thread about everything is kinda a thing but that specific thread is so 4chan ironic nazi it's amazing. Yeah this is exactly the feel I got, bad memories of a world I left in 2006 that almost turned me gross for good
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:It's absolutely dripping with jargon, which is understandable, so I would be interested in a Mil-Goon translating for us normies. If that's an option tldr is that russia doesn't have enough money for all the fancy toys to fight war to a "western" aka "american" level of effectiveness. quote:4)Now to explain the practical implications. Without those platforms in the air the Ru VKS rarely has an idea when a UA radar is being turned on unless they are almost on top of it in practical terms ( closer than 50 kms ). They just get notified when they get acquired. russia doesn't have the kind of aircraft necessary, or the kinds of communications network necessary, to quickly identify and destroy ukrainian defensive radar. this is probably why ukraine can still contest the airspace, where in contrast america won't even start inserting troops until air defenses are well and truly deleted and air superiority achieved quote:7)The next issue is what modern means for ground forces and air forces. It is supposed to mean All Weather forces. But at the very least night operations, but the issue is the bulk of the Russian ground equipment has 70s IR illuminators for its commanders. russia can't afford the optical targeting systems necessary to defeat the enemy conclusively in night fights. if you can give all of your dudes really good night vision systems, then you can preference fighting your enemy at night while he's stumbling around in the dark and you're just shooting the poo poo out of his dudes at lower risk to your own. the BIG advantage of tanks is optical and sensing systems, being able to see and kill things from a long ways off in all kinds of weather and light conditions. without this, tanks are a lot less effective. you can use them to spot ambushes. you can use them to identify distant movements without air vehicles. russia doesn't seem to have enough of them as one would expect quote:13)The inversion of that paradigm suggest that procurement is driven by Almaz-Antey and Rostech's funding needs and desires, rather than actual modern AF doctrine. The DoD Procurement slideshows may cause migraines, they don't cause inferiority by design to this degree. quote:18)As a whole while the Russian armed forces don't have the ability to act as a modern force at this scope. If we're talking about a subset across most branches of a combined total of 40-50 k . Maybe. But a ground component of 200k with backing, as we have seen is a problem. russia needs to spend procurement money on buying shiny things as an example for the export market. basically, russia relies so heavily on being an alternative source of weaponry for other nations, that the russian military could be said to be a showroom for russian arms exports. this means that when a shooting war happens russia doesn't have the most effective gear for the mission, they just have the gear that was used as demonstration tech for other countries to buy and then a whole bunch of older, worn out stuff that was kept in the back of the warehouse for field use. russia CAN build good stuff but CAN'T afford to actually equip their guys with the good stuff. meanwhile, american weapons systems are designed for american use first to achieve battlefield dominance, and then we'll sell some to you if we like you. america is rich enough to afford this. america doesn't rely on arms exports to survive, selling off our top-shelf gear is more of a bonus than a necessary part of the economy quote:19)Finally, to reiterate when you're not picking just a company or three from a brigade to send, you get to see how unprepared the service is. That shouldn't be news at this point, tanks without motor oil, dead batteries, drivers who can't handle ditches with tracked vehicles... in previous smaller conflicts, russia could just take their best trained and best equipped dudes and commit them to battle. this would create the impression that the entire russian military is well equipped - there is no evidence to the contrary! except now, when russia needs to field a substantial force, turns out a lot of the forces they put into the field had worn out, undermaintained equipment and not enough supplies. was this poor planning, or lack of resources? or both? keeping your whole army in fighting trim is ~expensive as poo poo~ and if the russian military had a year to prepare with additional funding, maybe some of these problems would have been identified and fixed before trucks started blowing their axles out after a few days of heavy field use Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That other tweet you had was old but really good can you post it again? Of course. It made me cry. He's trying, and it's heartbreaking https://twitter.com/RFERL/status/15...ingawful.com%2F
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I realize this is not going to be popular, but I disagree with this thread screaming that a no fly zone would inevitably lead into a nuclear apocalypse. NFZ means Russians shooting down NATO jets using AA in Russian territory. That means NATO bombing of Russian territory. That means Russian bombing of NATO territory. Where does this chain of events end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Okay, so this thread is long but has a different perspective than most on how the invasion has progressed/will progress. It's thesis seems to be that the successes in the south are less notable than they appear given the superior supply situation the Russians have there. It also goes into some detail about the bad equipment and tactics the Russian army has been displaying. OK, I can decode some of this. SEAD is Suppression of Enemy Air Defense. It means destroying enemy anti-aircraft weapons so your airplanes can fly around freely and blow poo poo up. It's a hard job that usually involves a complicated dance of missiles, artillery, aircraft, jammers, etc., I remember a chart laying it out in the Army back in the 1990s that would make your eyes water. ELINT is electronic intelligence, which is gathering data using electronic sensors. An obvious example is triangulating the location of enemy anti-aircraft radars so you can blow them up, but it also involves stuff like figuring out what kind of equipment is being used by the kinds of radio signals being given off, stuff like that. VKS is the Russian air force basically (really their combined air, space and air/missile defense forces.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:someone got through to the UAE that the security guarantee the United States has provided for decades has a cost, and that cost is pretty minor; you want to keep your kleptocratic throne secure, you keep the oil policy in the interests of the united states Saudi Arabia is the second doctor in a three doctor town. Doctor one just got kicked out of town and suddenly doctor 2 is in a more advantageous negotiating position--but only if they force a negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Okay, so this thread is long but has a different perspective than most on how the invasion has progressed/will progress. It's thesis seems to be that the successes in the south are less notable than they appear given the superior supply situation the Russians have there. It also goes into some detail about the bad equipment and tactics the Russian army has been displaying. It sounds like RU lacks the advanced sensor fusion that the US has been spending gobs of money on, but I'm not sure it matters in this conflict if UA is just making do with off the shelf drones and crowd sourcing for gathering intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
Play posted:Putin has threatened nuclear war and other assorted bluster many many times. At some point it may be necessary to call his bluff, as they suggest here. Or at least profess willingness to. If you make it clear you are not and will never be willing to do that, Putin could essentially invade any country he pleases, do anything he pleases and if anyone objects he just threatens nukes. I agree with you. There is a red line NATO ought to imply could trigger intervention; namely the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Okay, so this thread is long but has a different perspective than most on how the invasion has progressed/will progress. It's thesis seems to be that the successes in the south are less notable than they appear given the superior supply situation the Russians have there. It also goes into some detail about the bad equipment and tactics the Russian army has been displaying. Does't seem to paint a particularly positive or optimistic view of RU continued success. Hope it's true. "It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better — but apart from that it was excellent."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:At what point would you want to start WW3 with thermonuclear war a distinct possibility? At what point did starting WWII become a good idea? I'm not saying it is now but there are absolutely conditions under which it would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Chalks posted:NFZ means Russians shooting down NATO jets using AA in Russian territory. That means NATO bombing of Russian territory. That means Russian bombing of NATO territory. Where does this chain of events end? A conventional war between the US and maybe NATO vs Russia. That's not WW3, that's a regional war at best. It only becomes anything you could call WW3 if Putin decides to gently caress everyone including himself and launch missiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Okay, so this thread is long but has a different perspective than most on how the invasion has progressed/will progress. It's thesis seems to be that the successes in the south are less notable than they appear given the superior supply situation the Russians have there. It also goes into some detail about the bad equipment and tactics the Russian army has been displaying. So basically the guy is objecting to another analyst who holds the opinion that the Russian military is under-supplied and poorly maintained and therefore underperforming. Instead he posits that the force just has outdated and insufficient equipment across the board, and even fixing the logistic issues will not improve that. While the Russian force in the north is certainly facing critical logistic issues, the one in the south is supplied directly from Russia and is basically working about as well as they can - but it’s still a poor performance. He then goes into detail about how their procurement patterns for advanced weaponry have basically been politically corrupted, and as a result they’re fielding equipment that is missing critical modern features. In particular the reports of Russian night attacks using flares is absolutely jaw-dropping, but he talks about a wide variety of equipment shortages. Basically the long and short of it is that while the logistic problems have been gutting, they are in some ways covering up a more systemic failures throughout the Russian military that have led to only a percentage of elite units fielding modern equipment, and that equipment is often lacking critical features or is inappropriately allocated (too much of one politically-connected weapon system means that every problem has to be solved with that system).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
KillHour posted:At what point did starting WWII become a good idea? I'm not saying it is now but there are absolutely conditions under which it would be. No there aren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Bremen posted:A conventional war between the US and maybe NATO vs Russia. That's not WW3, that's a regional war at best. How do you tell the difference between nuclear and non-nuclear ICBMs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
I also don't really believe that Russia will decide on mutual annihilation just because they lose a war. Possibly if Russia itself gets invaded by NATO, but that's never going to happen. There really aren't that many people who are willing to let themselves and everyone they ever knew die just out of... spite. Putin might be one, but how about everyone in the chain of command, and everyone near those people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:At what point would you want to start WW3 with thermonuclear war a distinct possibility? How about you do a little thought exercise yourself, what do you think would necessitate armed western intervention in Ukraine? Nothing? Literally nothing? Or can you think of something? ZombieLenin posted:I agree with you. There is a red line NATO ought to imply could trigger intervention; namely the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Yeah those might be scenarios, among others I can think of (genocide, namely). Chalks posted:NFZ means Russians shooting down NATO jets using AA in Russian territory. That means NATO bombing of Russian territory. That means Russian bombing of NATO territory. Where does this chain of events end? Turkey shot down a Russian jet in Syria and managed to both not get bombed and not start WW3 somehow. Look I'm being pretty cautious by simply saying I don't think it should be COMPLETELY off the table and even if it is I don't think we should TELL the Russians that it's completely off the table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:It sounds like RU lacks the advanced sensor fusion that the US has been spending gobs of money on, but I'm not sure it matters in this conflict if UA is just making do with off the shelf drones and crowd sourcing for gathering intelligence. basically everyone expected russia to overmatch ukraine in terms of combat power. turns out after a couple weeks of shooting war that russia (who is still really dangerous!) isn't as tough as everyone thought and is more of an equal match for ukraine, mostly because russia doesn't have nearly enough of the expensive gear one needs to dominate the battlefield. they're not holding it in reserve, they're not keeping it for the right moment, they flat out don't have the poo poo. if they did, they'd be using it, and the world would be able to see them using it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
TheRat posted:How do you tell the difference between nuclear and non-nuclear ICBMs? Easily, because I'm pretty sure there are no non-nuclear ICBMs for exactly that reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Bremen posted:A conventional war between the US and maybe NATO vs Russia. That's not WW3, that's a regional war at best. In what scenario do you think Russia would consider launching nukes? NATO forces on the ground in Russia, taking territory? NATO forces advancing on Moscow? Is there a point before their entire country is overrun that they would use nukes? Because that is where it would go, a full invasion of Russia by NATO. Any line you draw before that is saying that you'd have Russia bombing cities in NATO territories and killing civilians and we'd just let that happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Play posted:Yeah those might be scenarios, among others I can think of (genocide, namely). I think genocide isn't enough just because Russia is already doing that by pretty much every definition. The line is more likely "Russia bombs Poland."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
KillHour posted:At what point did starting WWII become a good idea? I'm not saying it is now but there are absolutely conditions under which it would be. Which conditions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
the popes toes posted:Just everyday life in a war zone Shouldn't it be the other way, ie. air raid siren -> delivery to home door imminent
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:It sounds like RU lacks the advanced sensor fusion that the US has been spending gobs of money on, but I'm not sure it matters in this conflict if UA is just making do with off the shelf drones and crowd sourcing for gathering intelligence. "crowd sourcing" with a crowd that includes the US intelligence (and probably all of NATO for that matter) community including most of their fancy toys, as long as they can work from outside UA.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I realize this is not going to be popular, but I disagree with this thread screaming that a no fly zone would inevitably lead into a nuclear apocalypse. The issue is you can't do NFZ without crossing the border. A lot of Russian AA is in Belarus and Russia because of its range capabilities. To establish NFZ you need ability to destroy AA. That means flying into Russian territory and bombing AA installations. Putin telling his country "NATO is bombing Russian territory" is a significant escalation right away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
TheRat posted:How do you tell the difference between nuclear and non-nuclear ICBMs? There isn't. The decision to do retribution strike is done when the satellites pick up the engine flares from the rising missiles, and they are committed to it latest when the enemy missiles reach their apogee. No-one is stupid enough to see where the first missiles hit, or what was in the payload.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
My poo poo posting has perhaps as it's only virtue, variety. This clancychat is dull repetition of what so far, are baseless fears and add nothing to the "what's going on today" nature of the thread. Surely there's a we're all going to dire in nuclear hellfire thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Play posted:Turkey shot down a Russian jet in Syria and managed to both not get bombed and not start WW3 somehow. There's a difference between doing it accidentally or immediately backing down and enforcing a NFZ. We could maybe shoot down a Russian jet accidentally and not end the world. I wouldn't recommend it though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the military to English translations! I definitely missed some of the finer points. In other news Russia said they were going to bomb the hospital before they did. I'm so angry  https://twitter.com/olehbatkovych/status/1501622416581218309?t=_b4taTGDnv9pRTLFvcynwQ&s=19 Ukrainian military was there, actually. The pregnant women you saw were an optical illusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Which conditions? Russia directly attacks a NATO country, or as others pointed out, tactical use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
KillHour posted:At what point did starting WWII become a good idea? I'm not saying it is now but there are absolutely conditions under which it would be. It’s never a good idea, and highly probatable, in fact. Unfortunately, I must tolerate NFZ chat today, because it’s in the news again. Edit: Ignore this, I misread. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
so Russia is still advancing right
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:At what point would you want to start WW3 with thermonuclear war a distinct possibility? That's certainly been a feature of previous no fly zones, especially ones where the no fly zone itself occured over a hostile country; but it's not a requirement. There is no reason to think that a no-fly-zone itself couldnt be a continuum of escalating actions and force postures ranging from use of ground based air defences operating from NATO soil and providing some protection to UA airbases in the west, to limited air-to-air missions in parts of the country where Russian-based long range AA can't reach. Russians and Americans have spent plenty of time shooting one another over the last 80 years without local conflicts turning into global war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
NATO would kick russia's rear end so bad in a full on war. Doubt Putin would have the balls to start nuclear war. That's my 2 cents
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Chalks posted:There's a difference between doing it accidentally or immediately backing down and enforcing a NFZ. We could maybe shoot down a Russian jet accidentally and not end the world. I wouldn't recommend it though. Also it's two countries who do not share border, Russia wasn't engaged in total war in Syria, it was just an expeditionary mission, and Turkey claimed the jet crossed into its territory, IIRC. The situation just wasn't very similar at all no matter how you slice it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:"crowd sourcing" with a crowd that includes the US intelligence (and probably all of NATO for that matter) community including most of their fancy toys, as long as they can work from outside UA. True, but there's no reason to think that data is getting fed directly into the HUDs of pilots and tank crews
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 21:14
|
|