|
The navy's done sweet FA so far except bob around uselessly off Odessa and get sunk. Currently they look bad, so they must do something that looks good. It's "last days of the Reich" stuff. The commander of the Russian navy thinks an amphibious landing will please Dear Leader, so that's what's going to happen regardless of any other thinking.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Oh I thought they were going to try Odessa again, that's my bad. Even so, 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 07:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Oh I thought they were going to try Odessa again, that's my bad. Even so, Once they offload the troops they will probably keep feinting towards Odesa just to keep the Ukrainian forces defending it from moving east.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
40k shells between 18 howitzers makes 2222.2 shells per gun. The M198 has sustained rof of 2/min, so this stock is going to last for 18 hours of non-stop fire. That's not much of help, Biden!   e: oh, there's 200 Gavin's well that's a game changer :combatreformcry: Nenonen fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 07:42
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Once they offload the troops they will probably keep feinting towards Odesa just to keep the Ukrainian forces defending it from moving east. It's not much use if Ukraine can just rotate well rested troops from Odesa to the front and troops from more active sectors to Odesa for rest & refit, which they will have to do anyway. Any force's battle readiness will start to deteriorate if they're constantly at the front for more than couple of weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It's not much use if Ukraine can just rotate well rested troops from Odesa to the front and troops from more active sectors to Odesa for rest & refit, which they will have to do anyway. Any force's battle readiness will start to deteriorate if they're constantly at the front for more than couple of weeks. I'm not responsible for the *merit* of Russian actions, just if you've got amphib assault ships you may as well wave them towards the enemy. Neptune/Harpoon may change the calculus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Once they offload the troops they will probably keep feinting towards Odesa just to keep the Ukrainian forces defending it from moving east. Didn't the Russian fleet that still remains just head far from the coast immediately after the flag ship was struck? Seems like they may be wary even fainting towards the more Ukrainian controlled parts of the coast. (even ignoring the fact that attacking Odesa head on with all it's defenses, seems like certain suicide something seems like everyone is quite aware of that at this point.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 07:58
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I'm not responsible for the *merit* of Russian actions, just if you've got amphib assault ships you may as well wave them towards the enemy. Neptune/Harpoon may change the calculus. Sure, I just wanted to clarify that it's not like Odesa is full of elite troops dying of inaction or anything. The same goes with the forces watching Ukraine's northern flank against Belarus. Ukraine has to devote forces on both flanks, but they're not really out of anything as they can rely on local defense forces and reserve rotation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:00
|
|
|
Is there a statistic on how actively Russia has been bombing Ukrainian cities? Like how many missiles have hit Kyiv during the first weeks of war vs. now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
Do we really need to add the term "suicide" to the drones were sending. Like, yes, Im aware the drone blows itself up as part of its function but we're approaching a late game loot rpg adjective soup here. US to send Epic S-600 Socketed Multi-Attack Burning Suicide Drones as Ukraine sighs and pays for another pull hoping to get them with frost effects
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:03
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Do we really need to add the term "suicide" to the drones were sending. Like, yes, Im aware the drone blows itself up as part of its function but we're approaching a late game loot rpg adjective soup here. Hm, yes, Diablo invented the concept of... having a single perfectly descriptive adjective?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hm, yes, Diablo invented the concept of... having a single perfectly descriptive adjective? I think I just noticed it since (and Im sure I got things in an odd order so this is purely me) reporting started it was s-300s then it was s-300 "switchblades" then it was s-300 switchblades, then s-300 switchblade drones, and now suicide got appended. Its probably just more precision needed as it gets used with a wider auidence, but it was an evolution I noticed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
Now wait until you learn about the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Or Mil Mi-24 Hind Attack Helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I think I just noticed it since (and Im sure I got things in an odd order so this is purely me) reporting started it was s-300s then it was s-300 "switchblades" then it was s-300 switchblades, then s-300 switchblade drones, and now suicide got appended. Its probably just more precision needed as it gets used with a wider auidence, but it was an evolution I noticed. S-300 commonly refers to Russian heavy AA missile (in fact I haven't heard of Switchblade being called that, just Switchblade 300). It's this kind of confusion why descriptions are often added to model numbers, especially when readers aren't supposed to be familiar with their use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 08:48
|
|
|
It's loitering munition, but suicide/kamikaze drone is more easily understood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
I'm reading that a Russian default on their foreign debts could put financial institutions in jeopardy. What a joke if Russia does not pay, so taxpayers abroad need to pay instead to save those poor precious banks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 09:25
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Also In the battletech lore, the Clans had purposefully bio-engineererd their aerospace pilots to be shorter so they'd fit better into the cockpits. There is yet hope for me
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:28
|
|
isn't being shorter an advantage in those environments?
|
Having seen the latest outburst of Posters Very Concerned About Chomsky I found an article two days old where he clearly supports Ukraine, says Putin started it, supports arming Ukraine to defend itself, and suggests his view on the most likely negotiated peace deal. https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chomsky-jeremy-scahill/ How the gently caress do people look at that and come up with "Chomsky wants Ukraine wiped out" or label him "Noam 'Kill All The Jews' Chomsky", apparently I lack a sufficiently evolved brain to understand the subtleties. He accuses the US of blocking negotiation, which is admittedly a longrunning valid argument for Chomsky. But when Chomsky basically says he agrees with Zelenskyy's stated position... How does the echo chamber turn that into its exact opposite?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:38
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:In the battletech lore, the Clans had purposefully bio-engineererd their aerospace pilots to be shorter so they'd fit better into the cockpits. Can't they just cut their legs off?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
On Chomsky; Maybe some people need to find the new John Steinbeck, who infamously was on the wrong side of history openly supporting and advocating for the Soviet Union and Stalin during the Winter War, where SU invaded Finland and its democratically elected government? A detail that was conveniently forgotten later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Having seen the latest outburst of Posters Very Concerned About Chomsky I found an article two days old where he clearly supports Ukraine, says Putin started it, supports arming Ukraine to defend itself, and suggests his view on the most likely negotiated peace deal. Literally the first thing he says: quote:think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it has to be carefully scaled, so that it actually improves their situation and doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine and possibly beyond sanctions against the aggressor, or appropriate just as sanctions against Washington would have been appropriate when it invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan, or many other cases. ie. Don't actually arm Ukraine so that it can fight back, also you can only be for sanctions against Russia to the extent that you would have been for sanctions against Russia. e: also his argument on negotations is that the West should first concede everything Russia wants and then... maybe Russia will stop invading if further concessions are made? Chomsky is not a master negotiator you want in your corner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:52
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Having seen the latest outburst of Posters Very Concerned About Chomsky I found an article two days old where he clearly supports Ukraine, says Putin started it, supports arming Ukraine to defend itself, and suggests his view on the most likely negotiated peace deal. First question of the interview: quote:JS: I want to start because there’s been a lot of discussion on the left in the United States among anti-war activists on how to make sense of what a just response would look like to Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and the mass killing that we are seeing. We can take time to talk about the broader historical context, and you’ve been discussing this a lot in other interviews, but I want to just start by asking you, is there any aspect of the U.S., NATO, and European Union response to this invasion that you believe is just: the weapons transfers to Ukraine, the sweeping economic sanctions and attempts to entirely isolate not only Russia and Putin, but ordinary Russians? Is there any aspect of the government response to this by the U.S., NATO or the European Union that you agree with? Nobody is saying he wants Ukraine destroyed or hates Zelensky. Just that he is obsessed with the US and really really wants to somehow make the US the bad guy in this war between Russia and Ukraine. Oh and that we should not oppose Russia because they are so powerful, and it is better to be alive under their heel than dead. Confusion fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:54
|
|
|
As others have put it, Chomsky is a moralist when it comes to the US and the West but suddenly turns into the biggest Realist on the planet when talking about Russia. That's not taking a nuanced approach, it's just hypocrisy. e: I mean lets break his argument down further: 'arm the Ukranians, but don't arm them so much they can 'escalate''. Lets assume by 'escalate' that he means effectively counter attack because he doesn't define it but the conversation right now is about how to provide them heavy arms. This means that Chomsky's position is 'we should provide the Ukranians enough arms to keep them locked in a forever war with Russia', a position from anyone else he would condemn as utterly immoral but is okay because he's working backwards from 'if we adopt a policy of giving the Ukranians insufficient support then they will be compelled to give in to Russia's demands'. Aside from being morally wrong, he just refuses to analyse the policy 'what if we give the Ukranians enough arms to actually win?' e2: oh also his position 'wars end either in annihilation or negotiated peace' contains an obvious fallacy in that he assumes that a negotiated peace must therefore include some form of concession by both sides. That's not actually true and the most recent case study we have of a war that ended in a negotiated peace (Afghanistan) concluded with one side immediately repudiating everything in the peace deal. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:i don't understand, they have a multiple uncontested ground corridors and the remaining ukrainian resistance seems concentrated in few large industrial blocks. what benefit could there possibly be in a naval landing? badass photo op
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:02
|
|
|
Confusion posted:First question of the interview: It's a lot of words saying "Sanctions need to be pinpoint focused on the elites, not average people (no further guidance), also these same sanctions should have applied to the US (no further guidance) "...doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine" is just Russian invasion-imperialism civilian slaughter apologist propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:13
|
|
|
I'll make allowances for Chomsky on account of his being old as dirt, but it's pretty unforgivable that the first thing out of his mouth is about how western escalation might destroy Ukraine. Putin started this war talking about how Ukraine wasn't a real country. Russian state media has spent the whole war talking about how Ukrainian culture must be eradicated. You don't need to be a professor at MIT to see who wants to destroy Ukraine, they're telling you in their own words. We're only just now starting to see those objectives revised because a combination of Western arms and Ukrainian struggle made them impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:On Chomsky; Maybe some people need to find the new John Steinbeck, who infamously was on the wrong side of history openly supporting and advocating for the Soviet Union and Stalin during the Winter War, where SU invaded Finland and its democratically elected government? quote:In the first days of the war Pravda marshalled many British names who were willing to testify to the loftiness of the Soviet and Finnish Popular case. On 4 December there was Stafford Cripps, who allegedly considered Russia's conduct wholly logical and understandable. (Others included Professor Haldane of London University, who held that the Soviet Union had a right to defend herself. News about solidarity with the new Finnish 'popular government' abroad was published almost every day throughout the war. There were such names as G. B. Shaw, John Steinbeck and Jawarharlal Nehru, not to speak about the domestic luminaries, who included the cream of Soviet literature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:20
|
|
|
MadJackal posted:It's a lot of words saying "Sanctions need to be pinpoint focused on the elites, not average people (no further guidance), also these same sanctions should have applied to the US (no further guidance) "I think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it has to be carefully scaled, so that it actually improves their situation and doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine..." Why is escalation bad? "There are some simple facts that aren’t really controversial. There are two ways for a war to end: One way is for one side or the other to be basically destroyed. And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. So that means one way is for Ukraine to be destroyed. The other way is some negotiated settlement. If there’s a third way, no one’s ever figured it out." So Chomsky means 'escalation' as the Russians deciding to basically destroy Ukraine, and Chomsky cites Chechnya as evidence that Putin is capable of making that choice. What should the negotiations be based on? Chomsky says Zelenskyy has already put forth a set of 'reasonable proposals'. "Zelenskyy’s very clear, explicit, serious statements about what could be a political settlement — crucially, neutralization of Ukraine — those have been literally suppressed for a long period, then sidelined in favor of heroic, Winston Churchill impersonations by Congressman, others casting Zelenskyy in that mold. So, yes, of course. He’s made it pretty clear that he cares about whether Ukraine survives, whether Ukrainians survive, and has therefore put forth a series of reasonable proposals that could well be the basis for negotiation. We should bear in mind that the nature of a political settlement, the general nature of it, has been pretty clear on all sides for quite some time. " How you warp Chomsky explicitly supporting Zelenskyy's own proposals into, quote, 'Russian invasion-imperialism civilian slaughter apologist propaganda' is regrettably too subtle for me to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:26
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. This seems like his first logical failure. It is absolutely possible that the invading Russian army ends up destroyed. A lot of people missed that this was a realistic possibility back in, like, February, but it should be fairly obvious now, even to old folks whose brains have calcified. HIs second failure is that he seems to believe a negotiated peaceful result is actually possible. It isn't, because the Russians aren't operating in good faith and won't hold to their word, will commit genocide in the regions they capture, and will use any cease fires or hiatus simply as preparation time for further attacks. A sheep can't negotiate a settlement with a wolf; the wolf's only goal is to turn the sheep into dinner. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:I'll make allowances for Chomsky on account of his being old as dirt, but it's pretty unforgivable that the first thing out of his mouth is about how western escalation might destroy Ukraine. I think that's a misreading. Chomsky is saying 'how do we help Ukraine militarily without this leading to an escalation by Russia' and says elsewhere he has no insight into what point the Russians would make that decision. That's more "we have to help Ukraine but the military track *alone* eventually ends in Russian escalation" - hence his view you have to move to a negotiation track to avoid that escalation. "So the questions you raised are important, interesting, just what is the appropriate kind of military aid to give Ukrainians defending themselves enough to defend themselves, but not to lead to an escalation that will just simply lead to massive destruction? And what kinds of sanctions or other actions could be effective in deterring the aggressors? Those are all important, but they pale into insignificance in comparison with the primary need to move towards a negotiated settlement, which is the only alternative to destruction of Ukraine, which of course, Russia is capable of carrying out."
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:33
|
|
|
Because he's ignoring the nuance of Zelensky's version of neutrality including binding security guarantees that are effectively NATO membership, which is a dance in negotiations to flush out the fact that Russia's form of 'neutrality' is 'vassal state'. He's cherry picked an isolated quote, ignored all surrounding context or additional facts, and is using it to misrepresent the actual positions of the sides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:33
|
|
|
History repeats itself "Following the outbreak of war on 3 September 1939 and the rapid conquest of Poland, Shaw was accused of defeatism when, in a New Statesman article, he declared the war over and demanded a peace conference"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
Why do people keep defending that racist piece of poo poo that's looking to find a new genocide to deny? Yeah, you can find reasonable sentences. I can find reasonable sentences from Putin, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This seems like his central logical failure. It is absolutely possible that the invading Russian army ends up destroyed. Agreed, but I would reasonably predict that the collapse of the current invasion could lead to a partial or full Russian mobilization, and abandoning the pretense of this phoney war. And I think that's what Chomsky is worried about. If Putin decides his survival post-collapse requires going the Full Monty, who the gently caress knows where that ends up? Chomsky says the US should push for negotiation based on Zelenskyy's proposals. That's not unreasonable, is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:39
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Because he's ignoring the nuance of Zelensky's version of neutrality including binding security guarantees that are effectively NATO membership, which is a dance in negotiations to flush out the fact that Russia's form of 'neutrality' is 'vassal state'. He cites Mexico and Switzerland as models as neutral, outside military alliances, and not hosting foreign bases. Neither of them fit your claimed 'vassal state' so I have to say it's rather you who seem to be the one with the problem described by your second paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:44
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Agreed, but I would reasonably predict that the collapse of the current invasion could lead to a partial or full Russian mobilization, and abandoning the pretense of this phoney war. And I think that's what Chomsky is worried about. If Putin decides his survival post-collapse requires going the Full Monty, who the gently caress knows where that ends up? 1) Full mobilization won't help Russia win the war. They're already running out of working, functioning materiel (vehicles that run, body armor that isn't rusted out, guns manufactured since ww2, etc.) and the core of their professional army has been absolutely massacred so far. Adding hundreds of thousands of unequipped, untrained conscripts to that won't help; the Russians don't appear to have the gear left to equip them or the veterans and time left to train them. 2) It is unreasonable because Putin is not going to negotiate in good faith, period. This is an army that uses negotiated humanitarian evacuation corridors as a setup to massacre fleeing civilians, who repeatedly violates prior promises and guarantees. In the past Putin has literally called in an airstrike on his own negotiation team just to assassinate enemy leaders. He's stated prior to the invasion that his goals were genocidal and he is in fact acting out genocidal goals. The only purpose in negotiation with Putin is to be able to say "hey, we're trying to negotiate here." "Pushing for negotiation", especially right now, translates to "asking the Ukrainians to give the Russians a chance to reorganize and regroup for their next attack." There's only two ways this war ends; one side or the other breaks and collapses. That's just the reality. Actual "Realism" here means recognizing that this is a war to the death for both sides. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Apr 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:He cites Mexico and Switzerland as models as neutral, outside military alliances, and not hosting foreign bases. He's wrong though. Russia has clearly stated that their version of neutrality doesn't include EU membership (remember it was an EU deal that triggered Russian intervention 8 years ago) and so he's just making up a position for Lavrov that Lavrov doesn't actually hold. He's also refusing to engage with any of the 'Ukraine isn't a real state' stuff that Putin has been saying. e: he's also just assuming that if Mexico started basing Chinese forces that the US would react in a similar way, which isn't actually true and just thrown out there. The US wouldn't like it, but the result would not be an invasion and dismemberment of Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Do we really need to add the term "suicide" to the drones were sending. Like, yes, Im aware the drone blows itself up as part of its function but we're approaching a late game loot rpg adjective soup here. Call them "Goth Drones" and be done with it. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:He cites Mexico and Switzerland as models as neutral, outside military alliances, and not hosting foreign bases. This glosses over the massive elephant in the room that is the fact that Ukraine pre-invasion was pretty much as neutral as Mexico and Switzerland. But that wasn't neutral enough, because neutral to Putin means 'Russia has veto over any foreign policy decisions'. Naturally that is a bit of a no-go for Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:Why do people keep defending that racist piece of poo poo that's looking to find a new genocide to deny? Yeah, you can find reasonable sentences. I can find reasonable sentences from Putin, too. Proposal: The use of "reasonable sentences" by a poster should require demonstrating they are actually able to produce one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 11:52
|
|