War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Leperflesh posted:

There's no bright line you can draw between definitely military and definitely non-military when a country is at war, it's just chains of connections. So I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking your ethics in particular, you're making a familiar argument that many people would agree with. There are degrees of separation between people acting within a nation that is at war and the people prosecuting that war that if you follow completely, ultimately drags everyone into the status of "legitimate target", including people growing the food that feeds the army, people who voted for the guy who is doing the war, whatever. I'm sure we'd both agree that voters and farmers are too far removed to be legitimate targets... so we're just not landing on the same fuzzy gray area in the same place.

For me, I draw a line that would protect civilians repairing infrastructure used by civilians, even if it's dual-use.

That argument aside, a post that amounts to "they should kill those civilians" is gross, while "I hope they find a way to keep that bridge out of commission" is not, even if they both imply that civilians could be killed - there's a difference in expressed intent, bloodthirstiness, etc.

I would respond that the only reason that particular bridge exists is to assist in illegally annexing and colonizing Crimea, along with the additional territories they claim to have annexed.

It's not just some random rail bridge in Russian territory that also happens to transport military equipment.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2022 01:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:50

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

BabyFur Denny posted:

I am sure there are many countries that will be excited to hear that those low flying objects in their space will now be classified as national assets of the US military

I am sure that many countries are more informed than you and realize that the US military already has access to those assets.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2022 15:41

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Koos Group posted:

That is an interesting hypothetical. What sort of negotiations could have feasibly led to Ukraine peaceably allowing self-determination for its territories? It's difficult for me to imagine given recent history, but I'm not an expert on the region.

No offense, but you seem to be approaching this topic from the perspective that Russia has an inalienable right to demand that parts of Ukraine be given a chance to align with/be annexed by Russia.

In this hypothetical, if Russia was unable to convince Ukraine to hold these referendums (which you're correct, there's no reason why the Ukrainian government would agree to that without some sort of catastrophic level uprising by the population), then I guess they can politically lobby to get another puppet elected, which didn't end up working so well for them when the previous puppet gave Ukrainians the middle finger, try to pile on economic/cultural/diplomatic/saber-rattling pressure over time, which is how China has been trying to deal with Taiwan over decades, or realize that they can't accomplish this particular goal.

Nobody should be giving Russia a "well, Ukraine didn't let us steamroll them, so we had no choice to invade" free pass.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2022 19:49

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

adebisi lives posted:

What if administration of Crimea could be handed off to a neutral third party that also is indigenous to it (Greece) as part of a peace deal? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

That would require one to credulously believe that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea for humanitarian reasons to protect the population from the Ukrainian Nazis in Kyiv, and not for the colonialist reason that they wanted it for themselves.

# ¿ Oct 15, 2022 03:22

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Saladman posted:

Sorry for a kind of OT post, but probably other people have this issue: why do Twitter links show up with a full preview in my phone browser, but on my Mac they just show up as a bunch of bare hyperlinks? I�d have to independently click if I wanted to read them, which is inevitably a hassle and makes the thread way harder to read. I did some google searches and it turned up nothing, admittedly I couldn�t think of a good search term.

Tracking protection sometimes messes with link previews.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2022 00:30

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

TheRat posted:

If an empty missile was shot down, isn't that by definition achieving the effects they want? The terror of having missiles fly over your cities + the wasted resources of shooting down empty missiles / possibly missing armed missiles in the process

I think it would be even more effective to only shoot missiles with actual warheads on them because you have no need of rationing them.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2022 16:50

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

mlmp08 posted:

The VKS and Russia�s long range fires have been poorly used and targeted, but aerial decoys are a common thing used by the most modern militaries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-141_TALD

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD

https://www.elbitsystems-uk.com/what-we-do/air-space/self-protection/counter-measures/atald.pdf

I'm guessing most militaries don't "decommision" nuclear cruise missiles and re-employ them as decoy missiles.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2022 03:58

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

MikeC posted:

Excellent link. While it is written by a defence think tank, it is written in a way that is easily approachable even by civilians without formal military training. Anyone with a legitimate interest in military operations at a higher level than just Twitter cheerleading will find this an invaluable resource to understanding what truly happened during the first few months of the war. While most of what in this report will retread old ground for those who keep up with the more serious reporting, like ISW dailies and the more credible twitter analysts, it offers a great summary that helps dispel a lot of myths (especially about the Russians).

One question for people who have served in NATO militaries.

I am unable to parse what the author means. I thought 30% casualties for a unit was fairly significant and even a NATO military unit's ability to perform would be significantly degraded? I guess it could mean that the BTG was simply unable to function at all rather than merely function at a less than 100% capacity.

I'm not a military person, but I'm pretty sure the point is that NATO military units are more specialized, so if one of them gets hammered it can be rotated out without degrading the rest of the formation, while a BTG can become unusable if any one of its components takes too much attrition, like the difference between removable and soldered components on a motherboard.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2022 01:14

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Samopsa posted:

I dunno about this, there's a ton of factors that play a role here. The initial assault was done by troops that were briefed mere hours before going into Ukraine to mainly bypass everything to strike at a few critical targets. The troops had no proper air support, no proper artillery support, no preemptive missile strikes on hard targets, a long long long thin column of logistics, barely any communication, and zero intel. Oh, and a complete overconfidence on part of the architects of the invasion, who truly believed they could decapitate Ukrainian leadership and be hailed as liberators. After a few weeks of complete failure they executed a proper retreat: they basically didn't suffer any significant losses during the retreat itself.

Russia has learned though: you see them ceding gained ground when needed, concentrating force where they can while heavily fortifying their positions, using their weakest troops to keep Ukraine busy, defending their logistics as much as they can, and continually pressuring the enemy on the front and rear with deeper strikes. They haven't done any type of push that is remotely comparable to that first disastrous assault in February.

A Russian slow and steady approach with actually briefed troops supported by a proper logistical chain is probably capable of pushing to Kiev given time. It'll take a while, but if Russia commits and keeps pushing on multiple well supplied fronts, like southwards from Gomel & Chernobyl into Kiev and from Kursk & Belgrogrod into Kharkiv and Sumy while holding the line in the Donbas and pressuring them like they're doing now... It'll be very difficult for Ukraine to hold them.

Luckily it doesn't seem likely that Russia has the material, money, and coordination needed to actually enact such a push, but I think the war will become more bloody and tough the coming months, and Ukraine won't find much more "easy" (imagine the biggest quotation marks ever here) victories like the defense of Kiev, the rout in Kharkiv oblast, and the liberation of Kherson.

Russia has spent the last couple of months attempting to take one moderately-important city on their most easily-supplied front while advancing nowhere else.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2022 17:44

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

MikeC posted:

Just FYI, the twitter dude you are quoting is a Cato institute researcher. They are borderline isolationist in their FP thinking. They heavily argue against intervention and adventurism and it is through this lens they view the Russo-Ukrainian war. I'll assume this was a good-faith question. Most IR analysts of the realist school also do not view this war in isolation, especially US-based analysts who view this conflict as just one of many issues that need to be managed in order for the United States to maintain its hegemonic grip in the world that is growing evermore multipolar. Within this framework, Ukrainian territorial integrity is of minimal consequence to the United States. Unlike the bipolar world of the post-war era, proxy wars against *the* rival center of power are no longer zero-sum games. Since the emergence of China as a player with Great Power ambitions, any decrease in stability or power projection of the Russian state to protect its traditional spheres of influence necessarily results in the ability of Beijing to incorporate these regions into its own. This expansion is no longer theoretical with China emerging as Central Asia's security guarantor in the most recent SCO meeting held in Samarkand which saw Putin politically isolated and playing second fiddle with many CTSO countries that nominally rely on Russia as the guarantor and arbiter of security issues in the region.

Since almost all analysts see China as the new primary competitor to the United States, many view this current conflict as somewhat of a sideshow where the US and its treaty allies should not be wasting their strength. See the recent discussion on how the militaries and the hawks in many NATO countries are fretting that the Ukrainians are firing off all the ammunition they might need if they went to a shooting war with China. Even Mearsheimer, who takes an incredibly passive stance on Russia even in realist circles, is an absolute hawk against the Chinese and thinks Taiwan should be defended without question by the US. So when viewed within a wider geopolitical spectrum, Russia is not a primary threat, especially now that it is exhausting itself in Ukraine and US foreign policy should account for that fact. Generalizations tend to make fools of everyone and it is no different when talking about "realists" when everyone that falls within this loose category has differing views of how to proceed. What is common beyond the multipolar issue is that whatever they advocate, Ukraine is just a small part of the puzzle and it is the future of Russia that is more relevant. To them, what is scary isn't the prospect of Ukraine once again falling into the Russian orbit. What is scary is the possibility of Putin dragging Russia so far into the deep end that the Russian state itself collapses as an entity or suffers a sustained period of internal infighting which would see China gobble up tracts of the Siberian far east giving it access to the Arctic circle at worst or see Russia (with its wealth of energy and mineral resources) being driven into Beijing's arms as a junior partner in a new "Pax Sinica". The most ardent of these believers include people like Mearsheimer who everyone loves to hate in this thread who believe that the West should be doing its best to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing instead of pushing the two together at every opportunity.

Others, take a more middling stance where it is acknowledged that Moscow will always look to Beijing and vice versa so long as the US remains the 'first among equals' in the Great Power game but that there are reasons why you don't want Russia to go busto in Ukraine to the point where the state is in danger of collapse. The first is the potential of a messy exit by Putin and the semi-collapse of the Russian Federation along with the subsequent difficulty in accounting for the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The second is the possibility of maintaining Russia as a 2nd tier power allowing the theoretical possibility of a Russia that is not wholly beholden to Chinese interests and is willing to play both sides to avoid complete domination by a foreign agenda and thus keep the Chinese in check to a certain degree. Advocates of this camp look not only for the potential of a more graceful exit for Putin (negotiated peace) but also to potential successors to Putin should he be liquidated, where assurance is given that the territorial integrity of Russia, sans Ukrainian territory, will be respected and even defended in the face of belligerence from China should they just find a way to end this stupid war. This assurance requires no belief of goodwill on behalf of the Russians as it is the natural position for the US to take in its continued quest to contain China and maintain dominance in the Pacific. A distant third that is sometimes cited is the possibility of full nuclear escalation between NATO and Russia should the conflict continue and Western involvement in it remains constant - though no one seriously believes this and is more of a fig leaf.

Of course, none of this cares about what happens to Ukraine or the Ukrainians. If you are in the morally purist camp, this view is often cited as 'stupid' or 'evil' or what have you but to the realists, it's just the cold truth. Ukraine is a chip and should be played to the best advantage. If there is a low-cost method of keeping them in the fight then great. If not, however, losing it to the Russians, while not necessarily desirable, is not a deal breaker as the next set of countries are NATO treatied and thus entrenched to form a solid barrier to potential Russian expansion. Exhausting the collective West economically and militarily makes little sense when the real competitor is China.

Just to reiterate though, the tweet you linked is not written by a dude from the classical realist camp. He is from the libertarian camp where the US should just stick to the US and avoid foreign entanglements as much as possible.

So do the realists just write off the EU as permanent American stooges with no agency? Because I feel like the transatlantic relationship also has to be taken into account, especially after Trump spent four years making GBS threads all over it and giving Europeans ideas that maybe they should be investing more chips in China's stable geniuses.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2022 07:35

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

MikeC posted:

Two things to consider - first the EU isn't a unified conglomerate. It remains more of an economic and administrative body rather than a country that has a unified military. Brexit has already shown it is not immune to fracture. France maintains its own foreign policy objects distinct from nominal EU interests. The second and more salient point is that the EU itself is not capable of acting independently in any effective way when it comes to security matters. And security matters are what everything else is layered on top of and when Ukraine started up again this year, who did everyone turn to? US and NATO, not say the Germans and the Italians. For all the talk about it being the most powerful alliance in the world, NATO is an American institution. There is no NATO without the United States which supplies the significant majority of the military might of this "alliance". If push came to shove, the US could act independently but NATO sans the US would be a toothless organization.

So within this framework, the transatlantic relationship is being taken into account by these writers as it always has. But it views it in the light that no country in Europe (UK and EU) has the willpower to once again spend the money and lives required to be a player in the Great Power game again and the despite all the grumblings, Europe will continue to look across the Atlantic. After all, what are the alternatives? You are going to seek security guarantees from Moscow? Beijing is half a world away and is ruled by a single-party authoritarian regime that looks more and more like a total dictatorship every day that passes. You laugh at Trump supposedly making GBS threads on Europe for 4 years but let's face it when the Russians move in this year who did everyone call? Biden. What organization did Finland and the Swedes apply membership to? NATO. Which country does Ukraine *truly* rely on to continue its fight against Russia and would likely have to immediately sue for peace should this country decide its money should be better spent elsewhere? The United States of America. The US provides around half of all the dollars going into Ukraine and most of the military equipment that matters on the ground. That is the fundamental truth and this thread knows it. There is a very good reason why this thread frets from time to time about the GOP isolationist folks taking over Congress and putting a stop to the gravy train.

So by all means, pivot to China for security guarantees. Oh wait, the Chinese are standing awkwardly with their hands in their pocket handing out bundles of money to the Russians as the Ukrainians are being butchered because they need to keep Moscow onside for their own geopolitical ambitions. China could finish Russia in a day if it chooses to end its role in helping Russia avoid sanctions and buying its discounted energy. Oh well, maybe Poland and the Baltics will have better luck if they leave NATO and talk to China. It isn't that the EU has no agency. It is that the EU has no realistic alternatives without its member states choosing to spend the money in the amounts needed to truly support an independent policy that is free from American influence. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put all of that into stark perspective.

I think part of the issue is that the EU (or at least major players in it) started to believe that they had established the required economic links with Russia for there to be no longer a need for "security guarantees" from a superpower patron.

And paradoxically, while this invasion has proven that Putin's Russia will always be hostile, aggressive, and irrational from the perspective of liberal democracies, it has also proven that Russia doesn't have the "Great Power" capability to roll over Europe militarily.

But I think that America's resolve here mattered. Would Finland and Sweden have been so eager to apply to NATO if the US had just shrugged and told Europe that Ukraine was their problem? Especially if Trump had won reelection and was the one who was saying it? What would NATO's credibility be then? Does the EU have to worry about a Chinese invasion? (no) Australia has military ties with the US but stronger economic ties with China. Not that Europe is in the same position, but that kind of relationship can theoretically exist. The realists may be right that America and Europe will remain tied together by default, but I do think it matters whether or not that relationship is defined by apathy, distrust, and cynicism.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2022 17:07

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Telsa Cola posted:

I think functionally infinite is an extremely bold claim given the supply issues observed so far, without even discussing how many are actually avaliable for transfer without undercutting whatever necessary reserve stock amount is deemed necessary, especially in a time with heightened world tensions.

Yeah, all of those tanks idling in American warehouses are needed in case Canada invades.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2022 21:12

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Telsa Cola posted:

I think it's a fair claim that every country is reassessing what they deem "sufficent" as a reserve in case a war breaks out after watching the impact of the last 300 days on multiple nations military supplys, yes.

I think you're speaking very authoritatively about a topic you don't know much about.

So I'll willingly admit that I'm no military expert, and I'm sure some people in this thread can elaborate better than I can, but there are some main categories of "supply issues":

1. Obsolete/out-of-production hardware that NATO dumped on Ukraine at the beginning of the war, but they used up so much of it that production lines need to be created again (Stinger missiles)
2. Warsaw Pact leftovers from the Cold War, so there's only so much left to go around in NATO countries (BMPs/T-xxs/MiGs, 152mm artillery shells)
3. Equipment that doesn't really fit with past American military doctrine, so there was no massive stockpile or production capacity to begin with (artillery shells in general, specifically precision-guided shells, AGMs)
4. Equipment with a long production time and no real need for a massive stockpile, so there really is only so much to go around (Patriot batteries)

As far as I am aware, Abrams tanks fit none of those categories, and the reason why Ukraine hasn't received those is due to training/logistical/maintenance issues, not because the US military is terrified of China storming the beaches in SoCal.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2022 21:42

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Wonder how long it'll be until MTG is chanting "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US" and "RUSSIA IS OUR FRIEND" at a rally somewhere.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2022 05:18

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

mlmp08 posted:

If you take that tack far enough, then humanity itself is irrational based on lovely long-term planning. It makes the typical "rational actor" term used most commonly by people useless to take it that far, though. People have made some pretty compelling arguments that both individuals and groups often do not behave "rationally" in this sense, but then it applies to a much wider array of actors than Russia.

If you're going to ignore the assumptions and context behind decision-making, then the word "rational" also no longer has meaning. By your logic, a serial killer who believes everyone else is a genocidal replicant while he's the last human on earth is also a rational actor, because from his perspective it's justifiable self-defense.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2023 18:03

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

What's the point of military equipment that can't be used for actual fighting?

Why would anyone buy anything ever again from the Swiss defense industry, other than corruption/backscratching?

# ¿ Jan 11, 2023 18:24

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Warbadger posted:

OK, so what sources are saying all the residential neighborhoods, shopping malls, downtown apartment/commercial buildings, pedestrian bridges, hospitals, streets, etc. being hit are all just cases of missiles missing other "strategic infrastructure" targets?

If you launch a missile like the X-22 into a city and that missile is inherently unable to actually hit a specific target in said city, is it "missing" when it hits a highrise building? How does it even remotely serve to protect other missiles in the strike to launch 5 additional, older missiles against modern air defenses past maybe causing the defenders to expend more munitions in shooting them down?

If you fire enough missiles simultaneously, it overwhelms the AD because there aren't enough batteries to shoot down all of them at once.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2023 22:34

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

I hope we can agree that "just-in-time" military procurement and logistics are pants-on-head regardless of the geopolitical context.

I don't think that German defense minister quoted a page or two ago understood the definition of "spare," considering he was a proponent of JIT spare parts.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2023 18:38

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

TheRat posted:

Personally I think Germany not wanting to look like a main military force in Europe is a pretty good, historical reason. I don't see any reason to blame Germany more than the US for the delay.

Nobody thinks that sending military equipment to Ukraine (or allowing other countries to send military equipment to Ukraine) means the Nazis are back.

That reason sounds like plausible deniability for idiots to lap up.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2023 18:32

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Tomn posted:

I feel like this might be slightly unfair given how much of Germany's history education focuses on pummeling through the idea that "We did a VERY VERY VERY BAD THING before, NEVER AGAIN." It's unfortunate but understandable how parts of their internal politics might end up oversensitive about anything that might remotely sound like they're inching back towards the Bad Thing, even if everyone else is actually OK with the action in question.

See also discussions in this thread about how the German ministry of defense is where, traditionally, the gently caress-up political appointees are assigned in the cabinet shuffles to get them out of the way, or how the Bundswehr has been badly underfunded and organized ever since the end of the Cold War if not before. I imagine the average German has, on the whole, a very low tolerance of military adventurism in general, or anything remotely like it.

So it's ethically OK for "pacifists" to build up a profitable MIC that exports military equipment throughout Europe, but not OK to donate that same military equipment from that same MIC to a democratic country being invaded and genocided? :rolleyes:

You/they might have had a point if Ukraine was asking for manned German formations to join the war.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2023 19:37

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Tomn posted:

Hey, nobody said anything about ethics, just optics. I'm just noting the political reality that Germany has a bit of a kneejerk reaction to military adventures in the popular consciousness because of their history, and any politician who wants to change that needs to confront the political costs of attempting to change minds, in a way that the US or France or what-have-you doesn't have to quite as much, and that adds in some constraints on action that, say, Biden doesn't have to worry about as much. That's of course leaving aside the fact that Scholz himself doesn't exactly seem to be the most enthusiastic world leader in favor of aid to begin with, which would make him even less willing to run political risks for the sake of pushing aid through.

Again, not to say that Germany is justified in withholding aid, just noting that the political playing field is just plain different and what looks like a political slam-dunk in the US can look deeply contentious in Germany.

My post also applies to optics. They shouldn't be manufacturing tanks (for export) in the first place if this is a genuine quandary for them.

Quixzlizx fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 30, 2023

# ¿ Jan 30, 2023 22:06

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

litany of gulps posted:

This is a fun one because you're trying to do satire but basically all Americans are taught exactly this in school.

My crystal ball says you're from some shithole Confederacy state, which may also explain your simplistic and reductionist take on geopolitics.

Edit:

\/\/\/
You are just proving his point for him, the US definitely did NOT want to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for years/decades. Those were embarrassing political and strategic failures, and you're the one who seems divorced from reality if you think the long duration of those conflicts was the main objective of them.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Quixzlizx fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Feb 17, 2023

# ¿ Feb 17, 2023 06:16

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

litany of gulps posted:

Ohhhh, OK, so for the entirety of my lifetime and frankly the lifetime before that, the forever wars that the US has engaged in, every one of which was intended to bleed our enemies dry, was actually just an embarrassing mistake. We didn't want to be involved in constant, costly wars with a rotating cast of enemies that led to us developing an enormous military, that was all just a series of unfortunate misunderstandings?

Who was the US "bleeding dry" in Afghanistan and Iraq other than itself? Seriously, what are you talking about? You sound like you watched a thought-provoking Youtube video and realized how Very Smart you are.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2023 06:35

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

litany of gulps posted:

Were you not alive or adult for this time period? The war on terror? Post 9/11 frenzy? Axis of evil? Turning Iran into our enemy? Decades of war on the Taliban?

Since I guess that my previous posts have been somehow too subtle for you, in this analogy, the Taliban were the Ukrainians and the US was Russia. The Americans stupidly tried to achieve a political goal they were incapable of achieving through military force, and the Taliban bled America dry for 20 years until they swallowed their pride, admitted defeat, and went home.

You have seriously misinterpreted the geopolitics of the 21st Century if you believe the US intentionally and happily occupied Afghanistan for 20 years to "bleed their enemies."

And since you also mentioned the previous generation, this is also pretty much what happened in Vietnam, only the Soviets and Chinese were blatantly supporting the NVA (even more blatantly than the West is supporting Ukraine! They were flying sorties and operating AA for the North Vietnamese). Unless you thought North Vietnam was the great American adversary of the Cold War, and the Americans were just hanging out in South Vietnam getting 58k of their own soldiers killed in a decade to "bleed North Vietnam dry"?

It's amusing that self-loathing Americans are just as likely to indulge in American Exceptionalism as jingoists, only they view the US as Lex Luthor instead of Superman.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2023 07:15

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Maybe China should spend more money on English-language troll farms and conspiratorial shills, and less money on couching their particular victim complex in a way that sounds like a think tank consisting of the most boring bureaucrats on the planet thought it up.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2023 09:00

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

ronya posted:

https://twitter.com/niubi/status/1629874706764447748

Full court press on the hegemony thesis - mostly rehashing the same themes

The only chance the authoritarian powers had of driving a permanent wedge between the US and Europe that wasn't the result of a catastrophic Trumpian tantrum was the "economic interdependence will inevitably lead to peace and stability" theory, which Putin nuked from orbit. And even if Putin hadn't, China would've once they invaded Taiwan.

Does the CCP not realize that liberal democracies (regardless of how self-righteously hypocritical one finds them) see it (and Putin's Russia) as ideologically abhorrent? I don't think "ackshually, the US are the real baddies in Ukraine" is going to do anything other than preach to the choir, unless this article is meant for global south and not EU consumption.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2023 19:44

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Russia has been very judiciously firing waves of cruise missiles into cities whenever Putin is embarrassed when a heavy cruiser or bridge gets hit. Clearly all the relevant targets have already been reduced to rubble.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2023 01:33

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

I agree with the "maybe we shouldn't be so blatantly pirating paid articles" logic, not so much with the "too much text to scroll through" logic.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2023 19:50

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Even a "lovely" jet isn't like bolting together a technical. And obsolete models don't even have the production lines/supply chains available anymore.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2023 06:57

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Pook Good Mook posted:

Has there been any insight into whether Russia is holding anything back or is building up for the end of the mud season? For months it seemed like everyone was waiting for the late spring offensives to define the next stages of the war, but all reporting is so focused on Bakhmut. Is this because they are actually throwing everything they have into Bakhmut or just because it's the most active and obvious battle to suck up coverage?

You could at least read the couple of posts above yours, first.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2023 15:56

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Pook Good Mook posted:

As interesting as Nordstream and F-16 chat is (for the 12th time), the only other thing I'm seeing is OSINT discussions about casualty numbers and attrition rates in Bakhmut.

If you're uninterested in being helpful, you don't have to post.

It's literally two posts above your post, replying to someone who had basically the same question you did.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2023 16:52

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

HonorableTB posted:

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/russia-cannot-meet-arms-delivery-commitments-because-war-indian-air-force-says-2023-03-23/

According to Reuters, the war's causing Russia to be unable to meet its arms shipment obligations to India. This isn't the first time it's happened either, it happened with a shipment of armored vehicles and other weapons last year if I'm remembering correctly.

This will only strengthen China in the long term, especially with the trending of Russia towards being a resource colony junior partner of Beijing's. India without a Russia to buy arms from will need to get them elsewhere and China's a major producer of arms.

China is the reason India wants to be armed. So the Indian/Russian relationship declining would strengthen the US, if anyone.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2023 21:35

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

I don't think combat footage should be blanket banned, although I honestly haven't clicked any NMS links myself since the first month of the war, and have no interest in watching soldiers blow each other up. I'm definitely for nuking "sick fites" responses, though.

And I think this thread is valuable just as a non-American news aggregator. I find a lot of value in the EU/DE/etc. articles that are posted here, and I probably have more exposure to the European media perspective of the war than the American one at this point, since here we have the anodyne news networks that don't provide much useful information, and outside of them, anything beyond NYT/WaPo seems to devolve straight to THE WAR OF NATO AGGRESSION.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 15:57

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

Storkrasch posted:

Aligning with Russia hasn't really worked out either. A west-aligned Armenia could potentially give it some diplomatic way out if its geographical issues, whereas a Russia-aligned Armenia probably can't. The CSTO doesn't seem to exist anymore since Russia went whole hog into Ukraine.

Armenia seems to be making westward moves lately(Nancy Pelosi visit, anti-Russian protests, ICC statements), but NK will be a problem. Having the position that South Ossetia, Abkhazia, LNR and DNR are illegitimate while arguing that NK is 100% legitimate is tricky.

The OP's point is that Armenia isn't worth pissing off Turkey from the West's perspective, regardless of whether or not it's a good geopolitical strategy for Armenia itself.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 21:02

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

FWIW, I hardly ever see people get banned in here, especially after the admins implemented anti-inter-forum drama rules. Are there thread statistics for that?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 21:46

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

cinci zoo sniper posted:

There are no (literal) bans for inter-forum drama, GBS and C-SPAM threads are just under an admin warning that they'll get permanently closed if they return to it. This thread has never been involved in any of those conversations, thanks to my reputation going both way at least.

That's not what I meant. Once the moderation started tightening a bit in various places site-wide, there were fewer situations in this thread where people were getting wound up enough to lean toward ban-worthy posts.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 22:05

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

cinci zoo sniper posted:

Sorry, I'm not following the original question in this case, could you rephrase it?

I was just wondering if you had mod tools available that could trend how many bans have been handed out over time for posts in this thread, since some people have claimed that they are afraid of breaking some rule and getting banned, while I was mentioning that I anecdotally rarely see bans handed out in here.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 22:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:50

Quixzlizx: Jan 7, 2007

cinci zoo sniper posted:

Astral has helped out with this, offering a hack for the mod queue that allows to pull out some stats. Doesn't allow splitting by thread or probation duration easily, but in total I've issued

1304 probations over >100k posts (at least 91k about the war + stuff like US CE etcetera);

13 bans � 10 in this thread, of which 4 were site rules, and 1 was user-requested; or 1 real ban every ~450 pages, in other words;

2 permabans for reregs posting elsewhere in D&D;

152 title changes (~100 of that should be the Ghost of Kyiv tags).

Thanks for looking into it. In conclusion: :justpost:

# ¿ Mar 31, 2023 05:39

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > War in Ukraine: thread feedback session open unttil Saturday (i'll regret this)