|
Dwesa posted:The second strongest military in Ukraine Third if you count Ukrainian farmers as a separate group. Forth if you count the mud.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:poo poo, I have a Canon EOS D200. Brb, gonna build myself a Bayraktar... Say it three times in the mirror and I hear Erdogan shows up in your bathroom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Article 5 is basically the only reason for NATO to exist. If we chose not to respond with overwhelming force, then NATO immediately becomes irrelevant, whether or not it continues to exist in any form. I know, but the way the advocates of not intervening are putting things right now, it wouldn't matter, because the alternatives is nuclear annihilation. You let the baltics go and disband NATO, or putin nukes everyone. If you take it for a given that he'll actually do it, that's the logical way to respond. I certainly disagree but this seems to be a pretty popular opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Article 5 is basically the only reason for NATO to exist. If we chose not to respond with overwhelming force, then NATO immediately becomes irrelevant, whether or not it continues to exist in any form. I think we're getting into Clancychat now, but in the thread dedicated to that there is some discussion about why article 5 might not be an auto-MAD. Either way, Ukraine is where the mask dropped, in regards to the Kremlin regime and their leaning and in regards to the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the Russian military. My point wasn't to debate what would've happened if Russia ended up in a particular confrontation with NATO - my point was the Putin expected Ukraine to be a stepping stone towards something else. And I claim that a confrontation with NATO was expected to be part of that future. I think it is beyond discussion that the invasion wasn't expected to fail - obstacles and challenges prolonging the 'operation'? Sure. But we can see there was no plan B for an actual protracted war with Ukraine. It is folly to expect Kremlin belligerence and willigness to use force would end in Ukraine. Fair enough to think it would never go beyond cold war with NATO. But a fait accompli with Trump in office for a second term? I think most would consider it a risk. I will concede a fait accompli against the Baltics isn't the only way this could've gone. Putin is an opportunist, so he would've tried to adapt to circumstances. (and likely failed due to the very same issues causing the current failure for his forces). Hence, this war hasn't crushed merely his ambitions for control of Ukraine and to deal a blow against western unity. It has cut short any plans to challenge the Atlantic alliance and gain control of even more former Soviet/Warsaw Pact territory. Putin will have to reinvent his strategic agenda - if he even has time to spare for that, when trying to stay alive after failing so horrendously with the invasion. PederP fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Apr 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Meiers Goldbrick posted:Say it three times in the mirror and I hear Erdogan shows up in your bathroom. Coming to think of it, the Russian off-shelf parts drone should be called DIYraktar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I know, but the way the advocates of not intervening are putting things right now, it wouldn't matter, because the alternatives is nuclear annihilation. You let the baltics go and disband NATO, or putin nukes everyone. If you take it for a given that he'll actually do it, that's the logical way to respond. I certainly disagree but this seems to be a pretty popular opinion. That's the argument people make, but it doesn't really hold up. NATO would respond with conventional forces regardless. They are fully trained to deal with battlefield nukes, so Putin threatening to use them wouldn't slow them down any. No one's going to run in fear from Putin's threats. Putin actually using them is his choice, and he could do it today if he wanted to. I don't think it's a credible threat. ETA: Not clancychat, I'm just debunking the "NATO wouldn't defend the Baltics" talking point. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Apr 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
with a rebel yell she QQd posted:Since the war started we tried to help the refugees with my wife as much as we could. Initially we went to the train station to act as translators, then we started to help refugees online. Assisting them plan their trip further into Europe, booking tickets etc. You're doing amazing work, please keep us updated. It makes every goon proud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Or a T*rk*y sandwich. This pit is deep! Oh yes, we remember S*rdar Arg*c. You're not the only old here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Le Pen has been gaining so much recently because she is the only candidate talking about inflation and loss of purchasing power, and she’s campaigning a lot on the ground in rural areas. Ukraine and her closeness to Putin do not help her at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Third if you count Ukrainian farmers as a separate group. Forth if you count the mud. Speaking of, I 3D printed some stuff today   The tank got a bit messed up during the print but actually works well for russian armor. I'll have to get some ugly green paint to finish the diorama though. Deteriorata posted:That's the argument people make, but it doesn't really hold up. NATO would respond with conventional forces regardless. They are fully trained to deal with battlefield nukes, so Putin threatening to use them wouldn't slow them down any. No one's going to run in fear from Putin's threats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
I think Macron also lost an opportunity to lead on the Ukraine issue because he was so busy setting himself up as the Putin-whisperer and wanted to show that he could single-handedly resolve it with his incredible diplomacy. The longer the war goes on the more naive he looks, which means the war doesn't help him much either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Right, I agree, the question is whether the people who would be making the decision will when it comes down to it. Part of my point was that decision has already been made. NATO is fully committed to defending the Baltics, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I think Macron also lost an opportunity to lead on the Ukraine issue because he was so busy setting himself up as the Putin-whisperer and wanted to show that he could single-handedly resolve it with his incredible diplomacy. The longer the war goes on the more naive he looks, which means the war doesn't help him much either. i'm not going to bash a guy who, at worst, tried to stop the war from happening. even if it was never going to succeed, he tried. it cost nothing. of course, plenty of reason to bash him for almost everything else he does
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
I do not get the impression that the war has much influence on the French election. Macron is a dumb rear end in a top hat running against colossal assholes. Le Pen has some Russia connections that won't help her, and being absolute tossers runs in the family. I find the criticism of Macron keeping a line to Putin misplaced. It's his job and it costs nothing to keep talking even if it doesn't yield results. Keeping lines of communication open was crucial during the cold war as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So you are saying Le Pen benefitted none from openly saying she aligns with Putin, sure. Not saying Macron didn't do stupid poo poo, that wasn't my point. The point is that her (possible) success is thanks to her canny dodging of her Putin friendly positions, not because of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Part of my point was that decision has already been made. NATO is fully committed to defending the Baltics, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
NATO has shown equal determination in defending both London and Tallinn, or Paris and Riga. I am curious why all of a sudden people are thinking "but Putin might use nukes" would be a valid argument for letting Russia take the Baltics, but not for letting Russia take, say, Alaska. If the conclusion is that world leaders have decided anything is preferable to nuclear war, then Russia might as well start carving up the US and Canada because we can't respond, because nukes. If, however, the argument is that NATO has very clear red lines it defends and doesn't see an advantage in intervening in Ukraine currently, but would defend the Baltics, or Berlin, or NYC, everything leaders are doing and saying makes perfect sense. mobby_6kl posted:Ok maybe I'm misunderstanding how this would work since I'm not actual military guy, so please correct me. Wouldn't the individual members have to sign off before actually sending their forces? What's stopping president Le Pen from sayng, well he's not going to attack us, why would I risk getting Paris nuked for Lithuania? The NATO response force of 40,000 soldiers would immediately be deployed with no veto action possible by France or any individual member, they're NATO forces first and foremost. From there individual countries also determine what aid they would send. So you'll have soldiers from the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc fighting and dying on the ground before leaders make the decision to support and not, and dead soldiers is a very compelling argument for intervention. ranbo das fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Apr 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Unrelated, there were multiple pro-Russian demonstrations registered for today in a few German cities (always with some variation of " please top being mean to us "). Except this time people were watching for them and organised counter-protests.It went well I have no idea why these people decide to use car convoys now. There was a car convoy to protest high petrol prices recently as well. Protests using cars look much, much larger of course, but they are also so much easier to disrupt…
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Anyone obsessing about the Bayaktar is a bad actor. I don't care about the song writer, there is a reason the song got millions of views from outside Ukraine. The drone isn't just Turkish made, its literally a direct product of Erdogan associates. I know this post is not in good faith and I apologise for continuing this derail, but First, the Germany helped Finland in the continuation war, not the winter war. Second, if you think that the songs made during the wartime in Finland are in any way politically correct you are delusional. They did not particularly support the Germany but boy did they dehumanize the Soviets. It is not nice but it happens in wartime even without any particular political cheerleading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1513185057703436289?s=20&t=wlYBmdkFFx2LPs5BVTIgYg so basicaly all there forces are hosed up and now they are left with pushing broken units and reservists together as a bunch of volksgrenedares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Supporting Erdogan (indirectly, allegedly) is extremely Bad, while supporting Putin (directly, openly) is extremely Good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Unrelated, there were multiple pro-Russian demonstrations registered for today in a few German cities (always with some variation of " Lmao at the horse being "I know I'm a horse but i condemn you too"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Ok maybe I'm misunderstanding how this would work since I'm not actual military guy, so please correct me. Wouldn't the individual memebers have to sign off before actually sending their forces? What's stopping president Le Pen from sayng, well he's not going to attack us, why would I risk getting Paris nuked for Lithuania? They might do that with any attack on any NATO country, at which point NATO would cease to exist. The Baltics are not some special case, they've wargamed scenarios over them for years. They have rather elaborate plans in place for dealing with an attack on them. "NATO would never defend the Baltics" is propaganda straight from Putin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Saladman posted:The US was never going to annex Iraq. Iraq 2003 is also a bad example because if the US military just like peaced out in July 2003 and fully withdrawn, Iraq still would have turned into a bloodbath. If Russia peaced out of Ukraine then.. like 99.99% of the violence would be gone overnight. Seems like Putin was planning to simply replace the Ukrainian government with one friendlier to himself, not annex the whole country. Depending on how successful their invasion was their plan might have been to annex or split off some of the Russian speaking areas, but obviously that's not the same thing now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Ok maybe I'm misunderstanding how this would work since I'm not actual military guy, so please correct me. Wouldn't the individual memebers have to sign off before actually sending their forces? What's stopping president Le Pen from sayng, well he's not going to attack us, why would I risk getting Paris nuked for Lithuania? Because some nutjob destabilizing Europe is actually bad for everyone in Europe. It's bad for businesses, it's bad because it brings tons of displaced people, it's bad because if leaders don't react in a strong manner then people start losing faith in them, and it's bad because people's social media would be getting filled with images of mass graves in sleepy little towns like Pärnu. Sure, a crazy pro-Putin leader of a NATO country could drag her or his foot on the issue, but I don't think the prevailing public opinion would approve such leaders for long. Populist instincts would probably step in sooner or later. And nobody would be nuking Paris for France defending NATO territory, it's just not a good example of an excuse because I doubt even Marine LePen's supporters would believe that is a possibility as long as France has nukes of its own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
There's a very simple explanation for why, say, France would defend the Baltics from a Russian attack: It's better for France to fight Russia in Vilnius or Tallinn than in Paris. If Putin started carving off pieces of another NATO country, would you be willing to gamble that he'd stop before he got to yours?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Ok maybe I'm misunderstanding how this would work since I'm not actual military guy, so please correct me. Wouldn't the individual memebers have to sign off before actually sending their forces? What's stopping president Le Pen from sayng, well he's not going to attack us, why would I risk getting Paris nuked for Lithuania? This is why the standing subordinate commands need to make a comeback asap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:I have no idea why these people decide to use car convoys now. There was a car convoy to protest high petrol prices recently as well. Protests using cars look much, much larger of course, but they are also so much easier to disrupt… It's because thin skinned assholes are afraid of tasting asphalt by promoting bullshit, being in a car shields you from anything short of molotovs and, in case of danger, you can still hit the accelerator and run down counter protesters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Meiers Goldbrick posted:Say it three times in the mirror and I hear Erdogan shows up in your bathroom. No, FishBulbia appears and lectures you about loving Erdogan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Gone, gone, the form of man, and rise the demon Erdogan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:If, however, the argument is that NATO has very clear red lines it defends and doesn't see an advantage in intervening in Ukraine currently, but would defend the Baltics, or Berlin, or NYC, everything leaders are doing and saying makes perfect sense. Deteriorata posted:"NATO would never defend the Baltics" is propaganda straight from Putin. If there's one good thing to come from this whole mess, it must be the strengthening of NATO unity and deterrence. Between their own attrition and the troops pouring into NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence (hell, all eastern Allies), even the most koolaid drinking Putinist can no longer seriously believe Russia would ever be able to force a fait accompli in the Baltics. Btw, the Austrian chancellor is set to meet with Putin tomorrow. (He's already met with Zelensky in Kyiv) https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1513211598713901065?s=20&t=01SfPWg45LUPJsf6xOtMeQ PerilPastry fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
The real question is whether if the summoned phantasm of Erdogan can defeat the Queen of Spades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so basicaly all there forces are hosed up and now they are left with pushing broken units and reservists together as a bunch of volksgrenedares. There is a danger to underestimating what violence they can still wreck upon Ukrainian forces with force concentrations. Thinking the war just got easier makes it more difficult for the public to adjust to setbacks. I'm sure Russian thinking (or new thinking) is to strike hard soon before Ukraine can combine those new arms into a strengthened force. Also, I'm sure Putin told the new guy to "make a statement." Russia is still dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:Lmao at the horse being "I know I'm a horse but i condemn you too" Why is it a laughing matter for equines to express their political opinions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:There's a very simple explanation for why, say, France would defend the Baltics from a Russian attack: It's better for France to fight Russia in Vilnius or Tallinn than in Paris. If Putin started carving off pieces of another NATO country, would you be willing to gamble that he'd stop before he got to yours? By the time Russia got past the Baltics, the Baltic Sea will have taken St. Petersburg thanks to climate change. Russia will have to fix its logistics first to really be that type of threat to Europe, otherwise they will just keep repeating the Kyiv offensive, withdrawing and claiming it was a feint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The real question is whether if the summoned phantasm of Erdogan can defeat the Queen of Spades. That poo poo sound like a rejected fate storyline
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
E: ^^^ Maybe that could be a DLC for Kingdom Hearts 4.the popes toes posted:There is a danger to underestimating what violence they can still wreck upon Ukrainian forces with force concentrations. Thinking the war just got easier makes it more difficult for the public to adjust to setbacks. I'm sure Russian thinking (or new thinking) is to strike hard soon before Ukraine can combine those new arms into a strengthened force. Also, I'm sure Putin told the new guy to "make a statement." Russia is still dangerous. Have to agree with that, Donbas is a much smaller and much better mapped out area. Russian long range weaponry being funnelled towards there won’t look pretty at all, and the majority of Luhansk oblast may be a fait accompli at this point, in absence of a future collapse of Russian forces. A lot of this speculation depends on an entire chain of rumours benign completely true or completely wrong, however.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Gone, gone, the form of man, and rise the demon Erdogan. So I'm not alone, in thinking of that every time I see a reference to the Turkish president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
I am sorry to have accidentally kick-started the clancychat. Let's not restart that discussion. It was not my intent to speculate on what NATO might or might not done in one hypothetical scenario or another. My point was that a Putin who got his way with Ukraine would've had a non-zero chance to gently caress with the Baltics. It would very likely have gone extremely badly for him. But he has been working towards some kind of confrontation with NATO. Whether he would wait for a crazy person in a wig to withdraw US fully or partially from NATO, or whether he would go full brinkmanship, is impossible to say. We really should appreciate that Ukraine was able to pull his pants down and reveal the Putinkin military for what is was. It cost them dearly. And regardless of how events would've played out otherwise, I don't think it is wrong to say someone, somewhere, would likely have had to suffer eventually when Putin overplayed his hand and got punched in the face. Because his response would be to poo poo all over the table and just trade suffering. We can see that. I don't think speculations on just when that scat party would happen and who would be involved are particularly interesting, but I think it is worth reminding everyone the poo poo would land somewhere. He didn't plan for Ukraine to call his bluff, that's for sure. It saddens me a bit how many people across Europe are still acting like it couldn't have involved them in any way if Ukraine had folded. We can see right now just how painful Russian failure can be. In my own country so many people are still pretending this is a 'conflict' that begins and ends with Donbas, Crimea and Ukrainian alignment towards NATO/EU - and that is is completely inconceivable Russia would ever do anything stupid or aggressive against the rest of Europe. The specifics matter less than his obvious overrated perception of Russian military capabilities and his willingness to target civilians when it's expedient. He doesn't have to be irrational to make mistakes that result in disaster. We can see that right now, and it angers me when politicians and analysts just dismiss the possibility that he could make a similar mistake in regards to other neighboring countries, including the Baltics. I agree with almost everything said about NATO, Article 5 and how things can be expected to unfold. As mentioned, that really wasn't the discussion I was looking for. It's just that if he hadn't blundered painfully in Ukraine, I think he'd have blundered painfully in the Baltics. A lot of Europeans aren't taking that possibility seriously enough. Especially considering we may eventually get a new US president with rather unappealing views on NATO matters. Therefore, I'll go as ballistic as the most furious Article 5 response, if Europe fails to give post-war Ukraine the 'marshall plan' it needs and deserves. Those people are, not by choice, but by the whims of history, paying a price in blood and suffering to see the grand ambitions of Putin dismantled in the mud of Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for their existence - we didn't want them fight our (possible future) war, and I'm sure they didn't either, but that's how it ended up. And we owe them for it. Regardless of the details inherent to various hypotheticals where Ukraine folded. Many of us in North and Eastern Europe could very likely be bleeding in their stead, then. I am already seeing people state reservations in regards to future of Ukraine as an EU member and how much help we can give. I am still seeing people who treat this as some kind of 'both sides' conflict that has little direct relevance to us. It very much is a war we have a direct stake in. The moral obligation to assist Ukraine now and later - is massive. As is the obligation to help the people of Russia if they ever manage to cast off the totalitarian government which has taken root. But that's another matter. PederP fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Apr 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1513185057703436289?s=20&t=wlYBmdkFFx2LPs5BVTIgYg Holy poo poo  If that's remotely true that's loving devestating Russia broke all of its soft and hard power on Ukraine and came out with nothing
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2022 21:37
|
|
