|
OddObserver posted:Where "similar" means "both have a number of variants with different missions each", if I understood correctly. I don't know what you mean, or which systems/variants you are referencing? Patriot versions different from one another? Patriot different from S-300?
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:-The Ukrainian Patriot battery will not be linked into any NATO systems or communications. It is a battery for Ukraine to operate, on their own. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge from Russia to illegally occupied Crimea to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Moon Slayer posted:And if you believe that, I've got a bridge from Russia to illegally occupied Crimea to sell you. I think you are very wrong about this for both technical and policy reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I don't know what you mean, or which systems/variants you are referencing? Patriot versions different from one another? Patriot different from S-300? PAC-02 vs PAC-03 and S-300P vs. S-300V
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I don't know what you mean, or which systems/variants you are referencing? Patriot versions different from one another? Patriot different from S-300? PAC-3 is designed mostly to shoot down other missiles
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
1st AD posted:PAC-3 is designed mostly to shoot down other missiles PAC-3 has improved capability vs ballistic missiles compared to the PAC-2 family, but it retains the ability to engage aircraft, cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles, helicopters, etc. PAC-3 MSE (which I assume Ukraine is not receiving, but who knows) is kind of the best of both worlds, and the interceptor can basically outrange the supporting sensors right now. A Config 3+ battery can fire PAC-2 or PAC-3 interceptors. It's confusing, but the ordnance is PAC-3, whereas the battery/system is in Configs and builds. But if someone says "a PAC-3 battery" they likely mean a battery of the sufficient configuration to fire PAC-3 missiles, if they have the ordnance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
MikeC posted:More and more twitter sentiment also follows this trend as my feed leans more conservative than most here I suspect. Shapiro released a very 'IR realist' tweet that echo'd my earlier post accurately pointing out that Ukrainian interests are not America interests and that the two shouldn't be confused with each other. That at some point, the US needs to be able to be the bad guy should support for Ukraine no longer run in parallel with good US foreign policy. Like yeah the US doesn't have interest in Ukraine controlling specific patches of dirt but where exactly do the interests divert on a higher level? It's in the US and EU interest that Putin doesn't feel like he can just start wars in Eurrope and steal annex poo poo as long as he manages to make it mildly inconvenient. Retaining the current world order and not the "Russian world" Putin is pushing should be the broader consideration. You get both of those by ensuring that Russia fails utterly in Ukraine. They're (and well Ukraine too) is paying dearly for this poo poo and it costs us what, the same money MIC would've gotten anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
MikeC posted:
Setting aside the kneejerk "disagree with everything Ben Shapiro says and you'll probably be right most of the time" reflex . . . I disagree that this war is not a "core interest" of the US. Preventing wars of aggression within Europe is *very much* a core interest of the US and of western powers generally, on multiple levels. Just a short list of the most prominent reasons: -- preventing land war within Europe is literally the raison d'etre for both the EU and NATO. -- preventing land war within Europe is required for international economic stability, which is fundamental to capitalism. The price shocks which came from this war have already caused massive political instability as food and fuel prices rise, and that's likely to get worse. -- this war loops into 20th century American mythology as as "defender of Democracy" and so forth and feeds into our national mythology as victors in WW 1 and 2 saving Europe from themselves -- the military-industrial complex fuckin' loves this poo poo because it's a jobs program, the only jobs program we're allowed to have in this country -- everyone in Ukraine is white and telegenic and American television loves that -- letting Russia randomly start wars of aggression whenever they want is a great way to make sure the nuclear cork goes off sooner rather than later I agree that Russia appears to believe this war is not a "core interest" of ours and thus believes America will eventually go away and just let them win. Russia is probably wrong though. Russian leadership doesn't appear to really grok democracy or western-style free market capitalism. Just because Putin thinks democracies are weak loser countries who can't possibly stand up to the will of a big stronk real man country doesn't mean he's right, it just means he's got dick for brains. There has always been a nativist strain in American foreign policy but it has historically never won out; we stuck our dicks in WW1 and WW2 despite it and there's no real reason to think this time will be different. There is an outside chance that the Trump wing of the Republican Party takes power back and American support gets rationed, and pursuing that outside chance is probably Putin's best shot at victory, but it's an outside chance only; support for Ukraine is generally bipartisan despite the Tucker Carlsons out there, largely because even the rotting husk that is the modern Republican party still has enough synapses left to realize that letting Putin just up and take whatever he wants is not conducive to international commerce, much less international democracy, and Mitch McConnell takes plenty of Raytheon dollars and doesn't want flow to stop. Plus, end of the day . . . we can afford this war and Russia can't. Russia's going to end up suffering "extreme deprivation and hardship" and not controlling Ukraine. Biden's just signed over, what, another 44 billion dollars? I mean, just from google  Russia's entire military budget is a very small fraction of America's. AS per the joke at the start of the war, "According to Putin the special military operation is really a conflict btw Russia and NATO about World dominance. Whats the situation now?" "Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet."" Russian estimated losses crossed a hundred thousand casualties while Zelenzy was in America. NATO still hasn't bothered to show up. Russia is just fundamentally outclassed here; it doesn't matter what sacrifices they're willing to make, they just can't compete. The Generals are never gonna beat the Globetrotters, no matter how much they sacrifice. Ukraine is already winning and so far all we've done is give them our spare change and leftover toys. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Dec 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Ben Shapiro doesn't seem to think that we have any interest in the freedom and prosperity of other human beings. Umm, okay, I guess? I realize that narcissistic interests have their place--most human beings cannot wholly act in others' interests all the time--but to make a case that the United States has no interest in the liberty of other people is despondent at best and nihilistic at worst. Under such a worldview, Ben Shapiro should have no trouble with, say Donald Trump who, after all, was just looking out for his own best interests. gently caress that world view. Edit: My new avatar is really funny, but who got rid of my gang tag?! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Ben Shapiro doesn't seem to think that we have any interest in the freedom and prosperity of other human beings. Umm, okay, I guess? I realize that narcissistic interests have their place--most human beings cannot wholly act in others' interests all the time--but to make a case that the United States has no interest in the liberty of other people is despondent at best and nihilistic at worst. Under such a worldview, Ben Shapiro should have no trouble with, say Donald Trump who, after all, was just looking out for his own best interests. It's also just extraordinarily shortsighted. Everyone living in a democratic system of government has an interest in ensuring democracies aren't invaded and conquered and that such invasion attempts are not normalized. Everyone living in a market economy has an interest in ensuring markets are not captured by opportunistic warlords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
The power of the IR perspective is that all the elements, including "powers" and "interests," expand and contract to reach the desired results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Yeah, even if you subscribe to the IR perspective that America should do whatever is rational to remain top dog - it doesn't make any sense to suggest that the US should back off and let Russia win in Ukraine to build up hypothetical power to confront China. You could just as easily argue that a emboldened Russia would be more dangerous if it was aligned with China compared to a weaker Russia serving as a client state. It's all hand waving and speculation disguised as "hard men making hard decisions."
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Biden's just signed over, what, another 44 billion dollars? Important to remember that a lot of these bills have billions for things like US in NATO operations, cost of deploying extra crisis and intel forces to Europe, replacement of assets for the US, etc. 9 billion of this 45 billion is direct military for Ukraine. 12 billion is paying the US to replace its own items already given via past PDAs. 7 billion to fund USEUCOM mission support. 16 billion for economic and humanitarian assistance. Then a bunch of other stuff for lesser amounts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
After that last interview of his I'm shocked anyone would even dare hint to possibly suggest that Mearshiemier is or could ever be correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Kchama posted:After that last interview of his I'm shocked anyone would even dare hint to possibly suggest that Mearshiemier is or could ever be correct. didnt he just double down that ukraine should just bend the knee or some crap like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
Mearshiemier makes perfect sense if you fully believe the notion that might makes right is all that matters in geopolitics and that everyone would just bow to any strong power and not seek to look for outside help or assistance. It's a view that fundamentally okays land grabs by major powers because you wouldn't want to upset them and make a bad situation worse would you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Let’s not have a referendum on Mearsheimer and IR, especially not the one that broadly retreads the previous 10 times we talked about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
The US spent 10 years pouring money into Afghanistan so yeah I think it’ll find a way to send as much money as is required to a friendly European power whose primary military and political focus will be countering Russian influence
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Just come across this talk from some of those involved in the Operation Interflex training in the UK. https://twitter.com/RUSI_org/status/1600490313876840448 Vimeo if you don't want the video compressed to poo poo. https://vimeo.com/777316675
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
Part 3 of the interview by Lindybeige has just dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofJw89oI4ccYnglaur posted:Ben Shapiro doesn't seem to think that we have any interest in the freedom and prosperity of other human beings. Umm, okay, I guess? I realize that narcissistic interests have their place--most human beings cannot wholly act in others' interests all the time--but to make a case that the United States has no interest in the liberty of other people is despondent at best and nihilistic at worst. Under such a worldview, Ben Shapiro should have no trouble with, say Donald Trump who, after all, was just looking out for his own best interests. I think a lot of people didn't actually read what he wrote. To paraphrase, he said that stopping Ukraine from falling was good and right, but spending an uncertain amount to allow Ukraine to obtain full territorial integrity is not in the US goal, it's the Ukrainian goal and we (the US) are under no obligation to help them achieve that. WRT to Ukraine, and I am sure they follow US and European public attitude, if they are erring on being conservative, I am thinking they might want to err on the side of taking bigger risks to get more territory back rather than wait for a better day that might not come. Of course, that's under the assumption they are not in a place where they simply have no material means to move the front line significantly in the short term without another massive infusion that might or might not come (re: tanks and IFVs they publicly requested).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
MikeC posted:To paraphrase, he said that stopping Ukraine from falling was good and right, but spending an uncertain amount to allow Ukraine to obtain full territorial integrity is not in the US goal, it's the Ukrainian goal and we (the US) are under no obligation to help them achieve that. Ehh, I mean, "making sure Putin does not profit even symbolically from this power grab" is absolutely in America's national interest, for all the reasons outlined above, plus the additional reason that Putin's a wild card actor on the world stage and humiliating him and reducing his hard and soft power is absolutely a net gain for worldwide safety and stability. And it's at least worth pointing out that we're accomplishing this for peanuts in terms of relative cost: https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187?s=20&t=_JK3M2mGfpbShT12cRbCQQ Of course the human cost of the war to Ukrainians is horrific. But, like, Russia started it and Russia is keeping it going. There's virtually no downside for America in giving Ukrainians the tools they need and want to defend themselves. It's pocket change to us. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Mearshiemier makes perfect sense if you fully believe the notion that might makes right is all that matters in geopolitics and that everyone would just bow to any strong power and not seek to look for outside help or assistance. It's a view that fundamentally okays land grabs by major powers because you wouldn't want to upset them and make a bad situation worse would you. What if the major power only appeared to be a major power, and got its poo poo kicked in by the smaller neighbor they invaded? Does it still make perfect sense? If might makes right and you're a stronger geopolitical power (or bloc) does it make sense to allow your rival to invade neighbors when you can just send a fraction of your defense spending and old weapons to destroy their military and economic might? As the stronger party why should you bow to the concerns of the weaker rival who has just planted themselves firmly into a bear trap? Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
Offensive realism predicts that the United States will send its army across the Atlantic when there is a potato salad in Europe that the local great powers cannot place mayonnaise on by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Part 3 of the interview by Lindybeige has just dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofJw89oI4cc I would say that there's nothing wrong with saying that one day Ukraine's interests might not align with US foreign policy, that's kinda obvious to anybody paying attention. Stranger things have happened and one could invent any number of hypothetical situations about it. I would still laugh out loud at anybody claiming that they know that the US is doing too much right now and should be focusing its efforts elsewhere per what Mearshiemier has been saying recently. Nobody credible would even try to present an idea of what post war environment would look like right now, so claiming that realists can make arguments one way or another seem silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
Besides the fact that the US basically gets to decimate the Russian military and it only costs us money (the Ukrainians are paying in blood unfortunately) there's also the fact that the US is no doubt gaining TONS of intelligence. Theres Intel that can only be gained in a real war. Things like how modern US weaponry is performing, how modern Russian hardware is performing, etc. For example, the most modern Russian tank that's actually in service, the T90M, has only been in service for a few years. Now the US probably has a mostly intact example in their possession. And the usefulness of this Intel goes beyond this war. A lot of Chinese equipment is very similar to Russian equipment or straight up copies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Mearshiemier makes perfect sense if you fully believe the notion that might makes right is all that matters in geopolitics and that everyone would just bow to any strong power and not seek to look for outside help or assistance. It's a view that fundamentally okays land grabs by major powers because you wouldn't want to upset them and make a bad situation worse would you. Mearshiemier never makes that argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Let’s not have a referendum on Mearsheimer and IR, especially not the one that broadly retreads the previous 10 times we talked about it. *clears throat*
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
Am I the only one that feels like Putin actually just slipped his tongue calling the "special military operation" a war like it is, rather than actually deliberately calling it that? https://twitter.com/herszenhorn/status/1606052421498650624
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:*clears throat* The optimists' claim that salad composition and ham among the great powers has been burned out of the system is wrong. In fact all of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the placement of condiments among themselves for the foreseeable future. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Am I the only one that feels like Putin actually just slipped his tongue calling the "special military operation" a war like it is, rather than actually deliberately calling it that? That's doubtful. He's been very careful to avoid calling it a war for 9 months. It is effectively illegal to call it a war, and hundreds of people have been fined and/or driven out of the country for using the word "war." Given the howling response to it from the militant Russian bloggers, they certainly don't think it was a mere slip of the tongue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's doubtful. He's been very careful to avoid calling it a war for 9 months. It is effectively illegal to call it a war, and hundreds of people have been fined and/or driven out of the country for using the word "war." Given the howling response to it from the militant Russian bloggers, they certainly don't think it was a mere slip of the tongue. What would be the point of him all of a sudden calling it a war other than to appease said bloggers? Russia hasn't issued a formal declaration of war Edit: Here's some information from ISW regarding Putin using the term "war" instead of "special military operation". They claim that the milbloggers think the terms are interchangeable ISW posted:Putin’s use of the term “war” when regarding to the invasion of Ukraine has prompted some confusion within the Russian information space. Putin had stated during the press conference that Russia seeks to “not to spin this flywheel of a military conflict, but on the contrary - to end this war.” Putin used this word—war--instead of the phrasing “special military operation” when falsely accusing Ukraine of starting a war against its population in 2014. Putin’s mention of “war” prompted a few milbloggers to state that they have always used both terms interchangeably because “every thinking person knows that what is happening in Ukraine is a hot war,” despite the lack of an official declaration of war by Russia.[6] The confusion indicates that Putin’s limited war narrative may conflict with his presentation of the “special military operation” as a fight for Russia’s sovereignty while not being an official war. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-22 It also made me go back to that speech Putin made in September, and he specifically used the term "war" to describe what happened in 2014, and suggests (at least to me) that Putin could view the "special military operation" as part of the war. Putin posted:They turned the Ukrainian people into cannon fodder and pushed them into a war with Russia, which they unleashed back in 2014. They used the army against civilians and organised a genocide, blockade and terror against those who refused to recognise the government that was created in Ukraine as the result of a state coup. Willo567 fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:What would be the point of him all of a sudden calling it a war other than to appease said bloggers? Russia hasn't issued a formal declaration of war I'd speculate that it's an insufficiently articulated distinction that, you see, a war is being waged against/forced upon Russia, which it benevolently meets with the special military operation, etcetera. That said, the man is also quite old, and has been slipping with consistent usage of "the Ukraine" too, accidentally referring to it like to a real country a few times, so it could be just that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I'd speculate that it's an insufficiently articulated distinction that, you see, a war is being waged against/forced upon Russia, which it benevolently meets with the special military operation, etcetera. That said, the man is also quite old, and has been slipping with consistent usage of "the Ukraine" too, accidentally referring to it like to a real country a few times, so it could be just that. I hadn't realized he was 70 till now. Without knowing Russian and always hearing an English translator during speeches, I hadn't picked up those queues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
RockWhisperer posted:I hadn't realized he was 70 till now. Without knowing Russian and always hearing an English translator during speeches, I hadn't picked up those queues. He does sound quite normal usually, besides a moderate Zuckerberg-style “how do you do, fellow humans” vibe, but I don’t think that he can simply ignore his age either. Additionally, he’s clearly not fond of sticking to the scripts his speechwriters try to give him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Countries don't really declare wars these days, except against abstract concepts like drugs or terror. The W-word carries so many notions in national and international legislation and psychologically, that it's best to avoid it. Like for instance, Finnish politicians never used the W-word of our involvement in the NATO operation in Afghanistan, despite despite Finnish soldiers being in constant military engagements for years. No, it was an international security assistance operation!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
Every American military adventure had a silly name that military personnel and government officials used but they did not throw a censorship shitfit every time a public figure said "war" out loud - meanwhile Russia has cultivated both active and passive censorship, making everyone say SMO like they are undercover agents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1605700250953342977
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 09:06
|
|
|
Couldn't have happened to a better man. S dnem rozhdeniya!  e: fwiw here's BBC's report on it https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64063046 "Tsar's Wolves", ughhhh 
Nenonen fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 09:18
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Every American military adventure had a silly name that military personnel and government officials used but they did not throw a censorship shitfit every time a public figure said "war" out loud - meanwhile Russia has cultivated both active and passive censorship, making everyone say SMO like they are undercover agents. In a normal democracy government has limited means to control public discourse. Russian state and media have been engineered by Putin and his siloviks to avoid such defects. Putin otoh can say 'war' all he wants, the system is designed for him, not against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/themattdimitri/status/1605967960845287424 Wow this guy still don't miss!! Excellent analysis and understanding of reality. Truly a Realist, unlike us starry eyed idealistic sheeple, who got some growing up to do. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 10:57
|
|