User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:21:27 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Three freaking YEARS after the war started and FOUR after Russia started massing forces? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:23:20 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bogdan: Didnt we have a bunch of isolationist idiot naysayers that either sided with the nazis or like to stick their heads in the sand while another part of our country basically yelled as loud as they can that we need to spool up our defense production because this war WILL affect us one way or another? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bogdan: Originally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Most Americans were "Fat, Dumb, and Happy" on 6 December 1941 as well. Family picnics, a day at the park, etc. Tomorrow, they were planning to go to church then tune in their radios to one of the three pro-football games for the exciting regular-season finale. When they woke up on December 8th, they were in a different world.  Didnt we have a bunch of isolationist idiot naysayers that either sided with the nazis or like to stick their heads in the sand while another part of our country basically yelled as loud as they can that we need to spool up our defense production because this war WILL affect us one way or another? Uh, yes we did. And a lot of pro nazi rallies and marches too. Not just support, but outright card carrying nazi's. Some went to Germany and fought for the nazi's as well.. Remember in Band of Brothers the kid from Oregon in the german uniform. That was for real. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:24:38 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: In New York (Novgorodsky), the counterattacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are quite serious, objective control data indicate that the enemy has once again managed to break through to the center of the populated area. In Selidovo, as a result of counterattacks, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have driven the Russian Armed Forces from their positions in the city. Of course, this is not a catastrophe, but the key question is how many reserves the enemy still has and how long it will be able to delay our advance. Well, and, among other things, we will have to forget about taking the next cities of the Krasnoarmeyskaya agglomeration without destruction - the enemy is turning all possible areas and buildings into defense nodes. So the battles for Selidovo-Pokrovsk-Mirnograd will be long. Perhaps less than for Bakhmut, but certainly almost the same as during the storming of Avdiivka in the active stage. @notes_veterans https://t.me/notes_veterans/19351 In Kursk Oblast, two significant changes have occurred from the enemy's side, from a tactical point of view: 1. The first units of the National Guard have been brought into the region, namely the 11th Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine, transferred from the Kherson direction. These are the same mobile groups, UAV operators and quite second-line defense units. That is, the enemy is forming a defense, deepening it and doing all this seriously, no one is going to leave anywhere. Apparently, the issue of attracting other units of the National Guard of Ukraine will also be decided, many of which are currently not involved in combat operations and are carrying out positional service on the banks of the Dnieper. 2. Also, the 49th separate engineering assault brigade (newly formed) has been brought into Kursk Oblast, whose tasks are to support (primarily technical) large-scale offensive actions, including in urban areas and when overcoming water obstacles. What this indicates is very easy to guess. @notes_veterans https://t.me/notes_veterans/19352 Based on some footage I saw, it looks like Azov was shifted from the Serebrianka Forest to New York. Allegedly, the situation there was really perilous until Azov showed up and counter attacked. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:27:15 PM EST
[#4]
Czech Republic offers alternative in case of gas transit disruptions via Ukraine
The Czech Republic is preparing for the cessation of Russian gas transit via Ukraine and is calling on Europe to take active action. The country's Minister of Industry and Trade Josef Sikela sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Energy, in which he noted that the Czech gas network could replace the volumes of gas passing through Ukraine. "Russia has repeatedly demonstrated that it is an unreliable trading partner. We have made progress in reducing Russian imports, but we must step up our efforts," Sikela emphasized. The minister also said that the disruption of Russian gas transit would affect eastern countries, and it is necessary to look for alternatives. "We must avoid purchasing gas that is formally not Russian, but can be exchanged for Russian gas along the way, undermining our efforts to reduce dependence on Russia," he explained. Sikela suggested using gas imported in the form of LNG from Western European countries, because "the capacity of gas pipelines through the Czech Republic is sufficient for this." "Replacing Russian gas with gas imported to LNG terminals being built on the European coast also corresponds to the REPowerEU plan, which is aimed at reducing dependence on Russian energy resources," Sikela summed up. https://t.me/uniannet/144335 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:28:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Sounds like they’ve finally got the bugs worked out of those things. I wonder how many missiles are sitting in depots in various countries? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Article about those hawks from Spain https://www.kyivpost.com/post/38629 Sounds like they’ve finally got the bugs worked out of those things. I wonder how many missiles are sitting in depots in various countries? I don't know, but interesting that these things are still usable. https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/ukraine-hawk-phase-iii-missile-system-sustainment WASHINGTON, April 9, 2024 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Ukraine of HAWK Phase III Missile System Sustainment and related elements of logistics and program support for an estimated cost of $138 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today. The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy sustainment-related articles and services for the HAWK Phase III missile system, including engineering and integration for communications and interoperability; refurbishment and system overhaul of HAWK air defense fire units; missile recertification components; tool kits; test equipment; support equipment; technical documentation; spare parts; training; U.S. Government and contractor technical and field office support; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $138 million. The Secretary of State has determined and provided detailed justification that an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale to the Government of Ukraine of the above defense articles and services in the national security interests of the United States, thereby waiving the congressional review requirements under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe. Ukraine has an urgent need to increase its capabilities to defend against Russian missile strikes and the aerial capabilities of Russian forces. Maintaining and sustaining the HAWK missile system will enhance Ukraine’s ability to defend its people and protect critical national infrastructure. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractors will be RTX Corporation, located in Andover, MA, and PROJECTXYZ, located in Huntsville, AL. Equipment will be supplied from a combination of U.S. Army stock, country donations, Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS), and new production. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require temporary duty travel of an estimated 5 U.S. Government and 15 contractor representatives to Europe to support HAWK system training and sustainment. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. The description and dollar value are for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded. Phase III The PIP Phase III development was started in 1983, and was first fielded by U.S. forces in 1989. Phase III was a major upgrade which significantly enhanced the computer hardware and software for most components of the system, a new CWAR the AN/MPQ-62, added single-scan target detection capability, and upgraded the HPI to AN/MPQ-61 standard by addition of a Low-Altitude Simultaneous Hawk Engagement (LASHE) system. LASHE allows the Hawk system to counter saturation attacks by simultaneously intercepting multiple low-level targets. The ROR was phased out in Phase III Hawk units. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:28:55 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Three freaking YEARS after the war started and FOUR after Russia started massing forces? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Three freaking YEARS after the war started and FOUR after Russia started massing forces? I hope they catch up in time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:32:09 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: Based on some footage I saw, it looks like Azov was shifted from the Serebrianka Forest to New York. Allegedly, the situation there was really perilous until Azov showed up and counter attacked. There are no changes in the direction of Toretsk, the enemy is trying to regain the lost positions in New York and advance further to Toretsk with infantry assaults, but without success for them. It is worth noting that the enemy has already found out who is fighting against them and have become more cautious in their actions. P.S. Did they understand it even before publication in the media) https://t.me/officer_alex33/3682 (Azov infantry officer) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 8:52:57 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By doc540: Well stated. With no intention to slide the thread, what if anything could "stop" the puppets, media, tech, and academia? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By doc540: Originally Posted By jwnc: Originally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By HIPPO: FT Article: China’s new back doors into western markets
Archive link This is a good read. An intensifying rivalry between China and the US-led west is driving a fragmentation in the world’s economic order. Beijing, Washington, Brussels and other capitals have imposed a range of tariffs, export controls and other measures to protect their domestic markets and stymie competitors’ technological progress. ... China’s emergence as an economic superpower over the past four decades has been propelled to a large degree by globalisation. Open markets and free trade underpinned China’s long export boom and helped facilitate huge transfers of capital, knowledge and technology from the west to Chinese companies. Many have gone on to become world leaders in their sectors: examples include BYD and CATL in electric vehicles and batteries, Huawei in telecoms and ByteDance in social media. Post-WWII was an age where America dominated in all places in all things. That era is over. In the new era, China will be the one dominating in all places and in all things. The age of the American Empire is ending. Our leaders don't seem to have a comprehensive plan to effectively manage America's decline. I'm not saying this to be negative, and it should not be taken that way. All empires end, there is a rise and fall to every civilization & nation in world history, there are no exceptions. For better or worse, we live in the time of transition from the era of America to the age of China. You can try to argue that I'm wrong, but good luck making a case that will hold up over the next five years. This is the natural order of things, as the genesis of America's economic hyper-dominance was brought on by the two World Wars (and the fact we were latecomers to both militarily). However, the natural hubris of being #1 for so long made much of our leadership lazy and non-reflective, falling into the rut of mechanicalistic "checklist-style" thinking to address non-linear issues, and ceasing to make the citizens of the country they served their priority. Combined with the fact we necessarily kept getting sucked into Kipling's "Savage Wars of Peace", the outcome was inevitable. That is one reason we can never hold anyone accountable; "Sure, they collectively made a hash of things, but they followed the checklist and complied with the prevailing theories and policies of their bettors, so they are not really responsible". Most great empires; Roman, French, Austrian, several of the Chinese dynasties, etc, all trod this path before us. One of the byproducts of this process is that the "core citizens" of said empire is that the citizens eventually get tired of being exploited to maintain an empire that seems only to serve the "elites", particularly the lower orders. Think the replacement of the Roman lower equestrian and "noble plebian" classes by slaves and the "bread and circuses" crowd, the liquidation of the remaining parts of the British empire post WWII by the "Now Let's Win the Peace" domestically-focused Labor Governments, and so on. This is not to say that America's long-term decline is inevitable in the medium term, irreversible, or even imminent; as Bismarck put it, "God takes care of small children, drunks, and the United States of America!" What it does mean is that our government and societal "leadership" needs a hard reset, and citizens need to be reengaged, if we are to overcome our current miasma. I agree that the US has become soft and corrupt (although politicians have always been corrupt, it's just at a new level). However, it is amazing how resilient we still are, we are nowhere near the EU in terms of decline. Considering the damage that the "fundamentally change America" Obama puppets are doing with the MSM and tech oligarchs' help, we are by far the world's number one military and economic power (on a GDP/capita basis). The article is standard pro-China pablum, like Gates funding the NYT, Bezos owning WaPo, Disney with ABC, I have no illusions that FT isn't also dependent on Chinese ad money or direct payments. They neglect to mention that all economic data out of China is propaganda, and even considering that, China admits that it's growth rate is declining (they will never admit an actual recession). They have a huge demographic problem with the previous decades one child policy (not that the US is quietly following their path with a disastrous 1.6 birth rate). They have very little technology infrastructure if they can't steal Western tech, and people forget that if they have 1.3B people, they have more people with an IQ below 90 that the US has people (NOT corrected for the 20M new illegals who skew far below average - just another cold hard fact not covered by the MSM) that are either not very productive or unproductive and need support. They are not supermen. The rank 72 in the world for GDP/capita, around Mexico, Belarus, Columbia and Thailand. But again, their demographics are worse, per Mark Stein's book on China, "they will grow old before they grow rich." Whitewashing their communist record with business deals has been common for quite some time (see the NBA). The question is: why do they have to do it? Because they are a communist country with sanctions for stealing IP and human rights violations. The article mentions sanctions, but the only reason that they state is because of "protectionism", which is the least objectionable (to China) reason for the sanctions. Nope, no mention of a totalitarian communist state and the state owning a significant percentage of all of the businesses mentioned. I heard the same nonsense 20 years ago. While they have made progress, we have decades before they overtake us, assuming that Obama's commie puppets can be stopped. Well stated. With no intention to slide the thread, what if anything could "stop" the puppets, media, tech, and academia? My opinion - everyone wants a quick fix that doesn’t exist. Both sides will offer “quick fixes” that aren’t fixes and probably will make things worse. Re-read the Bible and the Constitution, plus maybe the Federalist Papers and some other stuff. Then start with you - live a politically moral life. Demand accountability and reject lies and quick fixes. Don’t be silent when your friends and family get taken in by un-Constitutional ideas and demagogues. The founders knew that our Democratic Republic required moral people to function. Re-establishing personal morality and integrity is the biggest key. Expecting Big Brother to be the substitute for personal morality is the slippery slope to totalitarianism. Even if it’s “your team” in charge. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 9:01:26 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: The messaging IS directed towards Russia. "sorry, we will tighten the leash, won't happen again"... If, as stated by Z, one of the main objectives of the Kursk offensive was to disprove yet another Russian "red line" then it backfired. The West, specifically the USA is managing this war to get a draw, maintain the status quo, and have been made to look foolish and probably pissed some pants due to Kursk. I can only imagine the frantic messaging back and forth in DC "fuck, the Ukrainians invaded Russia, call Vlad to apologize right fucking NOW!!" They would much rather have seen a Russian offensive go deep into Ukraine rather than the opposite. I believe they will reduce aid shipments, especially for the stuff Ukraine is begging for, as punishment but also to keep any more surprises from Kyiv from happening. This was basically like the UAF flying their first F16 to Moscow and taking shots at oil refineries on the day they were delivered! I think something similar happened after the Patriot ambush on a bunch of Russian aircraft. This alone may prove the Kursk Op was a brilliant military Op and a huge political blunder. Cowards, crooks and pacifists cannot be swayed by bold violent actions.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By GoldenMead: SecDef today said the US won’t allow deep strikes into Russia with US weapons. Also people at the Pentagon and White House were hinting that Ukraine was going to get a lot less ATACMS in the future due to a limited number available. Saddest part of all of this is we say it out loud so Russia knows what we are doing. The messaging IS directed towards Russia. "sorry, we will tighten the leash, won't happen again"... If, as stated by Z, one of the main objectives of the Kursk offensive was to disprove yet another Russian "red line" then it backfired. The West, specifically the USA is managing this war to get a draw, maintain the status quo, and have been made to look foolish and probably pissed some pants due to Kursk. I can only imagine the frantic messaging back and forth in DC "fuck, the Ukrainians invaded Russia, call Vlad to apologize right fucking NOW!!" They would much rather have seen a Russian offensive go deep into Ukraine rather than the opposite. I believe they will reduce aid shipments, especially for the stuff Ukraine is begging for, as punishment but also to keep any more surprises from Kyiv from happening. This was basically like the UAF flying their first F16 to Moscow and taking shots at oil refineries on the day they were delivered! I think something similar happened after the Patriot ambush on a bunch of Russian aircraft. This alone may prove the Kursk Op was a brilliant military Op and a huge political blunder. Cowards, crooks and pacifists cannot be swayed by bold violent actions. There’s not much evidence to show that the US gov has shit a brick (in a policy sense) over the Kursk operation. They may have been surprised, there may be officials who didn’t like the idea of an outside the box operation, but it doesn’t seem to have any ramifications. The discussions on JASSM supply are ongoing, which would be one area that the US could rapidly show disapproval - but they aren’t. Otherwise the US is probably watching the Russian political scene more than anything. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 9:11:44 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: NSFW battlefield pickup.
Lucky they didn’t bring back a morsel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 9:16:15 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW2WtkSW4AAmund?format=jpg&name=large
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Originally Posted By HIPPO: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW3xQepW8AAjpD4?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW2WtkSW4AAmund?format=jpg&name=large
Drone debris is getting more flammable all the time! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 9:40:25 PM EST
[#12]
⚡ Today, September 8, 2024, at night, the enemy launched an air strike on the city of Sumy.
‼️ As a result of the airstrike, two people died, four more people were injured, including two children. ❗ Private houses, cars were damaged. 🔴 All necessary services are working to eliminate the consequences of the attack. Necessary medical assistance is provided to the wounded. 🔴 Be careful and stay in shelters during an air alert. Take care of yourself and your loved ones! https://t.me/Sumy_news_ODA/29593 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 9:42:12 PM EST
[#13]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 9:43:36 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: This is more an example of everything touched by the demo-commies turning to shit. And the demo-commies have had their hands all over Ukraine for many many years. To many Americans, Ukraine is toxic BECAUSE OF THE DNC INVOLVEMENT THERE. I don't know Tim Poole and never listened to him but he is about as likely to have been brain-fucked by our democrat friends as actual Russian disinformation Ops. I hope Frontiercowboy thinks and tries to remember when, in the past 100 years, the Russians were the good guys. WWI and the Bolshevik revolution? WWII? (they started WWII eagerly allied with Hitler), Korea (Russian Mig15 pilots shooting down US jets), Cuba? Vietnam? Nicaragua? Angola? Lebanon/Iraq/Iran/Syria? Name a time and place where/when YOU supported the Russians. Ask yourself what changed. Russia became the good guys just because the demo-commies used Ukraine as a hub for grift? You are basically like the idiot Afghan father stoning his daughter to death because she got raped. The democrats have been raping Ukraine for 10+ years and you want the Ukrainian people to be murdered by the same assholes that will do the same to YOU and YOUR family? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Frontiercowboy: Maybe some are just good and some evil? Most of the pro Ukraine contingent is Astroturf and they got the balls to insinuate that Tim Poole and Trump are under Russian influence? Lol. We have the Internet's now buddy. We aren't all smoking the dope you guys are peddling some are paying attention. This is more an example of everything touched by the demo-commies turning to shit. And the demo-commies have had their hands all over Ukraine for many many years. To many Americans, Ukraine is toxic BECAUSE OF THE DNC INVOLVEMENT THERE. I don't know Tim Poole and never listened to him but he is about as likely to have been brain-fucked by our democrat friends as actual Russian disinformation Ops. I hope Frontiercowboy thinks and tries to remember when, in the past 100 years, the Russians were the good guys. WWI and the Bolshevik revolution? WWII? (they started WWII eagerly allied with Hitler), Korea (Russian Mig15 pilots shooting down US jets), Cuba? Vietnam? Nicaragua? Angola? Lebanon/Iraq/Iran/Syria? Name a time and place where/when YOU supported the Russians. Ask yourself what changed. Russia became the good guys just because the demo-commies used Ukraine as a hub for grift? You are basically like the idiot Afghan father stoning his daughter to death because she got raped. The democrats have been raping Ukraine for 10+ years and you want the Ukrainian people to be murdered by the same assholes that will do the same to YOU and YOUR family? Great post/rebuttal...wish we had like buttons... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:10:12 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bogdan: Didnt we have a bunch of isolationist idiot naysayers that either sided with the nazis or like to stick their heads in the sand while another part of our country basically yelled as loud as they can that we need to spool up our defense production because this war WILL affect us one way or another? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bogdan: Originally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Most Americans were "Fat, Dumb, and Happy" on 6 December 1941 as well. Family picnics, a day at the park, etc. Tomorrow, they were planning to go to church then tune in their radios to one of the three pro-football games for the exciting regular-season finale. When they woke up on December 8th, they were in a different world. Didnt we have a bunch of isolationist idiot naysayers that either sided with the nazis or like to stick their heads in the sand while another part of our country basically yelled as loud as they can that we need to spool up our defense production because this war WILL affect us one way or another? Yeah, there were called the America First movement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:12:06 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW0tLViXoAA7rgb?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWzKYgWXwAAHu8u?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW0tLVhXAAAnAgU?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWzKYgaWsAA92dq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWxRueOXsAEhyz7?format=jpg&name=medium
Sign up, dude. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:19:34 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Doubts I have. Russia has been murdering Ukrainian civilians for 2.5 years with Iranian drones. Legit, but the drones get shot down at a pretty high rate. Ballistic missiles are another matter. It really is an escalation, and should be treated as such. The real shame is that friendly forces can't get to the Caspian Sea to shoot down every IL76 transiting between Russia & Iran. And the TU95 launch zone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:23:12 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: wow! By a millisecond. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Prime: Pickup CASEVAC with what is at best a near miss.
wow! By a millisecond. You can see the same thing in both Russian and Ukrainian videos. When they go in for a dust-off, there is ZERO fucking around. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:30:17 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Probably nuke and/or delivery system help. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:33:14 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: Possibly, but highly unlikely. The juice (missiles) isn’t worth the squeeze (all of the equations would change). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Money. Iran bent them over the barrel on Shaheeds ($193k a piece). That makes sense. I suppose Russia is kind of limited in terms of material support it could provide Iran at the moment. I imagine something similar is probably at play with North Korea, in terms of money and trade. Technology transfers are also probably involved. Maybe some nuke tech too. Possibly, but highly unlikely. The juice (missiles) isn’t worth the squeeze (all of the equations would change). That’s what Russia wants. Israel is the west’s pain point. A regional war that goes hot, or even nuclear, isn’t a problem for Russia but is for the west. Also don’t discount historical Russian anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in actual foreign policy decisions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:34:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: Lieh-tzu]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: Nothing justifies what Russia is doing today but applying today's thinking to the XVIII-XIX century events makes as much sense as knocking down the historical monuments here in the US. Or try replacing Russian Empire with British Empire and Pushkin with Kipling in the cited article and it's still applicable. Is Russia culturally similar to what it was 100-150 years ago? I would argue that they are. Culture is just as big a driver for a society as demographics and economy. Is there another explanation for some of the absurd logical inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance so pervasive in Russian people? ETA after reading that series of tweets. This one really rings loudly:  You hear this sentiment repeated from many people in many settings, from their TV shows to political leaders to the street interviews. Russians are generous, Russians are peaceful, Russians are kind. They say this, but objectively, it's BS. Look how their culture behaves with minorities. 'Systemic racism' in America doesn't even touch it. The 'white savior' thing is deeply real in Russia. This one too:  Solovyov, Simonyan and others have said out loud that Ukrainians built nothing that they have, all of it was built by Russians, and if Ukrainians fight then Russia may as well just level Odessa, Kyiv, whatever and rebuild them (build back better). This one is problematic:  Russians largely believe the 90s to have been a decade of catastrophe, and with good reason. This slide looks only at the positives for those who were freed from Moscow's yoke, but for the Muscovites and closely-held territories, the dissolution of the USSR was pretty bad. Putin has played that expansively. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:35:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: Jaehaerys]
[#22]
I highly, highly suggest reading this entire thread. Really interesting stuff. It's an analysis of the Russian National Wealth Fund, referred to as "the last piggy bank" of the Russian government here. Based on this analysis, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Russia has only a year or maybe two left until they start to sink badly.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:40:30 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Is Russia culturally similar to what it was 100-150 years ago? I would argue that they are. Culture is just as big a driver for a society as demographics and economy. Is there another explanation for some of the absurd logical inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance so pervasive in Russian people? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By voyager3: Nothing justifies what Russia is doing today but applying today's thinking to the XVIII-XIX century events makes as much sense as knocking down the historical monuments here in the US. Or try replacing Russian Empire with British Empire and Pushkin with Kipling in the cited article and it's still applicable. Is Russia culturally similar to what it was 100-150 years ago? I would argue that they are. Culture is just as big a driver for a society as demographics and economy. Is there another explanation for some of the absurd logical inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance so pervasive in Russian people? In that vein, and since you said you like reading material, here's a shorter academic article I'd suggest reading. Russian National Identity and the Russia- Ukraine Crisis. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:46:17 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: Nothing justifies what Russia is doing today but applying today's thinking to the XVIII-XIX century events makes as much sense as knocking down the historical monuments here in the US. Or try replacing Russian Empire with British Empire and Pushkin with Kipling in the cited article and it's still applicable. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: Originally Posted By Prime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4j695WMAA-Fr6?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4j8Y5XIAAZjq2?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4j9y8WwAATzH4?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4j_DrXoAADSIZ?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4kAHQWMAAjGG4?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4kBXLWgAAUXS9?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4kCnVWgAA_Kdv?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4kD1WW4AA-lci?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW4kE6kW4AANyFU?format=jpg&name=large
Nothing justifies what Russia is doing today but applying today's thinking to the XVIII-XIX century events makes as much sense as knocking down the historical monuments here in the US. Or try replacing Russian Empire with British Empire and Pushkin with Kipling in the cited article and it's still applicable. Point taken that Imperial behavior and rhetoric has similarities whether you’re talking about the British, French, or Russian Empires. Two differences IMO: -Even as unapologetic Empires, the western Empires still exhibited the cultural legacy of western “liberalism”. The Russian Empire starting more or less with Peter tried to modernize and put on the trappings of western society to some extent, but without much development of socio-political traditions that took place in the west over the last 500 years. -Western overt Imperialism diminished greatly after WW1 and further still after WW2. So even if we equate Russian Imperialism to Western Imperialism, it’s the Western Imperialism of 100+ years ago. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:47:35 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Swiss cheese! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:52:56 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34832 Since Putin probably isn't going to go for the peace talks, and Ukraine already said they would I think it ends up Ukraine gets more assistance to push out Russia. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By planemaker: Russia doesn't have 4 years to end this war. Either the war will end long before then or Russia will end long before then. Sarcasm. Responding to Capta who believes Russia is all in for Trump...Honestly, if I were serving in the Russian army, I'd vote for Trump if I could just to get it over with either through negotiated peace to a flood of US weapons to end my suffering. Has Trump proposed increasing weapons supply? https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34832 Two key advisers to Donald Trump have put forward a plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine if he wins the presidential election, according to a Reuters report. The plan involves telling Ukraine that it will only receive more US weapons if it enters peace talks with Russia. At the same time, the US would warn Moscow that refusing to negotiate would result in increased US support for Ukraine, said retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, in an interview. Since Putin probably isn't going to go for the peace talks, and Ukraine already said they would I think it ends up Ukraine gets more assistance to push out Russia. They have presented this strategy to Trump, who responded positively, according to Fleitz. “I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased with the feedback we received,” he said. However, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said that only statements made by Trump himself or authorized members of his campaign should be considered official. The strategy proposed by Kellogg and Fleitz is the most detailed plan suggested by associates of Trump, who has previously claimed he could quickly end the war in Ukraine if elected without providing any specifics. Yeah I read about that but that isn’t the same as a proposal from Trump. Nor do I think he has any incentive to actually stick with it once another advisor like Tucker Carlson gets his ear. For example one of the so-called “Trump associate proposals” put out the figure “$500 billion in weapons” but when you read the wording, it was $500B if Russia doesn’t agree to a cease fire in place. Which is exactly what Russia wants. Essentially all the parts of that plan were nice-sounding nonsense that were all made meaningless by “we demand cease fire in place.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:54:58 PM EST
[#27]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:57:46 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: In that vein, and since you said you like reading material, here's a shorter academic article I'd suggest reading. Russian National Identity and the Russia- Ukraine Crisis. Ha! Only five pages. I'm on it!  (I'm still working on the 22-page article about Putinism  )
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:58:24 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: No, he hasn't proposed much of anything except the dubious "stop the war in 24 hours" nonsense. But he hasn't provided specifics to too many topics. I think he is agnostic on Ukraine and will decide the direction once (big if) he is in office, talks with advisors, NATO allies, and Zelensky. He will ask Z and Putin what it will take to end the war and negotiate a hard deal. I don't think it will work and then the big question is what will Trump do when one or both sides refuse his offer. If I'm not mistaken, Zelensky was pretty positive after a private meeting with Trump. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 10:58:56 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: That’s what Russia wants. Israel is the west’s pain point. A regional war that goes hot, or even nuclear, isn’t a problem for Russia but is for the west. Also don’t discount historical Russian anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in actual foreign policy decisions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Money. Iran bent them over the barrel on Shaheeds ($193k a piece). That makes sense. I suppose Russia is kind of limited in terms of material support it could provide Iran at the moment. I imagine something similar is probably at play with North Korea, in terms of money and trade. Technology transfers are also probably involved. Maybe some nuke tech too. Possibly, but highly unlikely. The juice (missiles) isn’t worth the squeeze (all of the equations would change). That’s what Russia wants. Israel is the west’s pain point. A regional war that goes hot, or even nuclear, isn’t a problem for Russia but is for the west. Also don’t discount historical Russian anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in actual foreign policy decisions. Ehh, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Russia wouldn’t have a problem with Iran nuking Israel if they helped them with the process. They would want to be tied to that for some missiles? If so, they are days away from collapsing and the missiles are the only thing that is going to save them. That’s the cost/benefit level we are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:08:31 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stone-age: If I'm not mistaken, Zelensky was pretty positive after a private meeting with Trump. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stone-age: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: No, he hasn't proposed much of anything except the dubious "stop the war in 24 hours" nonsense. But he hasn't provided specifics to too many topics. I think he is agnostic on Ukraine and will decide the direction once (big if) he is in office, talks with advisors, NATO allies, and Zelensky. He will ask Z and Putin what it will take to end the war and negotiate a hard deal. I don't think it will work and then the big question is what will Trump do when one or both sides refuse his offer. If I'm not mistaken, Zelensky was pretty positive after a private meeting with Trump. He has to be. He (and other parties like NATO) have to plan for the worst case meaning they are trying to build relationships with him now, whatever they actually think of him. There have been articles on this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:10:54 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Yeah I read about that but that isn’t the same as a proposal from Trump. Nor do I think he has any incentive to actually stick with it once another advisor like Tucker Carlson gets his ear. For example one of the so-called “Trump associate proposals” put out the figure “$500 billion in weapons” but when you read the wording, it was $500B if Russia doesn’t agree to a cease fire in place. Which is exactly what Russia wants. Essentially all the parts of that plan were nice-sounding nonsense that were all made meaningless by “we demand cease fire in place.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By planemaker: Russia doesn't have 4 years to end this war. Either the war will end long before then or Russia will end long before then. Sarcasm. Responding to Capta who believes Russia is all in for Trump...Honestly, if I were serving in the Russian army, I'd vote for Trump if I could just to get it over with either through negotiated peace to a flood of US weapons to end my suffering. Has Trump proposed increasing weapons supply? https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34832 Two key advisers to Donald Trump have put forward a plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine if he wins the presidential election, according to a Reuters report. The plan involves telling Ukraine that it will only receive more US weapons if it enters peace talks with Russia. At the same time, the US would warn Moscow that refusing to negotiate would result in increased US support for Ukraine, said retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, in an interview. Since Putin probably isn't going to go for the peace talks, and Ukraine already said they would I think it ends up Ukraine gets more assistance to push out Russia. They have presented this strategy to Trump, who responded positively, according to Fleitz. “I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased with the feedback we received,” he said. However, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said that only statements made by Trump himself or authorized members of his campaign should be considered official. The strategy proposed by Kellogg and Fleitz is the most detailed plan suggested by associates of Trump, who has previously claimed he could quickly end the war in Ukraine if elected without providing any specifics. Yeah I read about that but that isn’t the same as a proposal from Trump. Nor do I think he has any incentive to actually stick with it once another advisor like Tucker Carlson gets his ear. For example one of the so-called “Trump associate proposals” put out the figure “$500 billion in weapons” but when you read the wording, it was $500B if Russia doesn’t agree to a cease fire in place. Which is exactly what Russia wants. Essentially all the parts of that plan were nice-sounding nonsense that were all made meaningless by “we demand cease fire in place.” Trump and the advisors said that Ukraine will not lose territory. But from reading on it, it doesn't say it but in another article I can't find, he said they will not lose territory. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:15:02 PM EST
[#33]
Is there anything that can reliably stop a ballistic missile fired at Ukraine? If I'm not mistaken those missiles travel at about mach3 and can be transported in a medium truck.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:23:19 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: Ehh, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Russia wouldn’t have a problem with Iran nuking Israel if they helped them with the process. They would want to be tied to that for some missiles? If so, they are days away from collapsing and the missiles are the only thing that is going to save them. That’s the cost/benefit level we are talking about. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Money. Iran bent them over the barrel on Shaheeds ($193k a piece). That makes sense. I suppose Russia is kind of limited in terms of material support it could provide Iran at the moment. I imagine something similar is probably at play with North Korea, in terms of money and trade. Technology transfers are also probably involved. Maybe some nuke tech too. Possibly, but highly unlikely. The juice (missiles) isn’t worth the squeeze (all of the equations would change). That’s what Russia wants. Israel is the west’s pain point. A regional war that goes hot, or even nuclear, isn’t a problem for Russia but is for the west. Also don’t discount historical Russian anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in actual foreign policy decisions. Ehh, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Russia wouldn’t have a problem with Iran nuking Israel if they helped them with the process. They would want to be tied to that for some missiles? If so, they are days away from collapsing and the missiles are the only thing that is going to save them. That’s the cost/benefit level we are talking about. Russia was already (most likely) willing to help HAMAS kill 1300 Israelis, purely to divert western bandwidth from Ukraine. Regional war in the middle east is October 7 on steroids. If they were desperate enough a year ago how much more desperate are they now or a year from now? Take the worst-case scenario, Russia helps Iran build deliverable nukes and Iran uses them on Israel. Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. If Iran gets off a nuke and then Israel launches a major nuclear retaliation against Iran, do they launch on Russia? Because while Iran might be more or less helpless after the first blow, Russia would erase Israel. So Israel has an incentive not to retaliate against Russia for an Iranian attack that Russia facilitated. And if Iran doesn’t get off a nuke strike (which is the most likely) because Israel destroys their facilities, then we’re looking at a regional missile war plus Iranian proxies. Which again is perfectly agreeable to Russia and even diverts pressure from Assad in Syria. If there’s a downside for Russia in a regional war in the middle east, I don’t know what it is. At least looking at it from their perspective, the upsides outweigh the downsides by a significant degree. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:24:32 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jozsi: Trump and the advisors said that Ukraine will not lose territory. But from reading on it, it doesn't say it but in another article I can't find, he said they will not lose territory. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jozsi: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By planemaker: Russia doesn't have 4 years to end this war. Either the war will end long before then or Russia will end long before then. Sarcasm. Responding to Capta who believes Russia is all in for Trump...Honestly, if I were serving in the Russian army, I'd vote for Trump if I could just to get it over with either through negotiated peace to a flood of US weapons to end my suffering. Has Trump proposed increasing weapons supply? https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34832 Two key advisers to Donald Trump have put forward a plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine if he wins the presidential election, according to a Reuters report. The plan involves telling Ukraine that it will only receive more US weapons if it enters peace talks with Russia. At the same time, the US would warn Moscow that refusing to negotiate would result in increased US support for Ukraine, said retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, in an interview. Since Putin probably isn't going to go for the peace talks, and Ukraine already said they would I think it ends up Ukraine gets more assistance to push out Russia. They have presented this strategy to Trump, who responded positively, according to Fleitz. “I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased with the feedback we received,” he said. However, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said that only statements made by Trump himself or authorized members of his campaign should be considered official. The strategy proposed by Kellogg and Fleitz is the most detailed plan suggested by associates of Trump, who has previously claimed he could quickly end the war in Ukraine if elected without providing any specifics. Yeah I read about that but that isn’t the same as a proposal from Trump. Nor do I think he has any incentive to actually stick with it once another advisor like Tucker Carlson gets his ear. For example one of the so-called “Trump associate proposals” put out the figure “$500 billion in weapons” but when you read the wording, it was $500B if Russia doesn’t agree to a cease fire in place. Which is exactly what Russia wants. Essentially all the parts of that plan were nice-sounding nonsense that were all made meaningless by “we demand cease fire in place.” Trump and the advisors said that Ukraine will not lose territory. But from reading on it, it doesn't say it but in another article I can't find, he said they will not lose territory. Most likely meaning *more territory* - i.e. cease-fire in place and de facto legitimization of Russian conquests. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:24:52 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stone-age: Is there anything that can reliably stop a ballistic missile fired at Ukraine? If I'm not mistaken those missiles travel at about mach3 and can be transported in a medium truck. Patriot and SAMP. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:28:29 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
Bonus points with barrel wear firing those duds 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:30:46 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Russia was already (most likely) willing to help HAMAS kill 1300 Israelis, purely to divert western bandwidth from Ukraine. Regional war in the middle east is October 7 on steroids. If they were desperate enough a year ago how much more desperate are they now or a year from now? Take the worst-case scenario, Russia helps Iran build deliverable nukes and Iran uses them on Israel. Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. If Iran gets off a nuke and then Israel launches a major nuclear retaliation against Iran, do they launch on Russia? Because while Iran might be more or less helpless after the first blow, Russia would erase Israel. So Israel has an incentive not to retaliate against Russia for an Iranian attack that Russia facilitated. And if Iran doesn’t get off a nuke strike (which is the most likely) because Israel destroys their facilities, then we’re looking at a regional missile war plus Iranian proxies. Which again is perfectly agreeable to Russia and even diverts pressure from Assad in Syria. If there’s a downside for Russia in a regional war in the middle east, I don’t know what it is. At least looking at it from their perspective, the upsides outweigh the downsides by a significant degree. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Money. Iran bent them over the barrel on Shaheeds ($193k a piece). That makes sense. I suppose Russia is kind of limited in terms of material support it could provide Iran at the moment. I imagine something similar is probably at play with North Korea, in terms of money and trade. Technology transfers are also probably involved. Maybe some nuke tech too. Possibly, but highly unlikely. The juice (missiles) isn’t worth the squeeze (all of the equations would change). That’s what Russia wants. Israel is the west’s pain point. A regional war that goes hot, or even nuclear, isn’t a problem for Russia but is for the west. Also don’t discount historical Russian anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in actual foreign policy decisions. Ehh, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Russia wouldn’t have a problem with Iran nuking Israel if they helped them with the process. They would want to be tied to that for some missiles? If so, they are days away from collapsing and the missiles are the only thing that is going to save them. That’s the cost/benefit level we are talking about. Russia was already (most likely) willing to help HAMAS kill 1300 Israelis, purely to divert western bandwidth from Ukraine. Regional war in the middle east is October 7 on steroids. If they were desperate enough a year ago how much more desperate are they now or a year from now? Take the worst-case scenario, Russia helps Iran build deliverable nukes and Iran uses them on Israel. Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. If Iran gets off a nuke and then Israel launches a major nuclear retaliation against Iran, do they launch on Russia? Because while Iran might be more or less helpless after the first blow, Russia would erase Israel. So Israel has an incentive not to retaliate against Russia for an Iranian attack that Russia facilitated. And if Iran doesn’t get off a nuke strike (which is the most likely) because Israel destroys their facilities, then we’re looking at a regional missile war plus Iranian proxies. Which again is perfectly agreeable to Russia and even diverts pressure from Assad in Syria. If there’s a downside for Russia in a regional war in the middle east, I don’t know what it is. At least looking at it from their perspective, the upsides outweigh the downsides by a significant degree. No consequences if Israel doesn’t survive? Just an “oh well” from the rest of the world? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:35:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: Capta]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: No consequences if Israel doesn’t survive? Just an “oh well” from the rest of the world? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Capta: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: For me, the question is, what is Iran getting from Russia in exchange for this? The SU35 deal still hasn't happened, after all. Money. Iran bent them over the barrel on Shaheeds ($193k a piece). That makes sense. I suppose Russia is kind of limited in terms of material support it could provide Iran at the moment. I imagine something similar is probably at play with North Korea, in terms of money and trade. Technology transfers are also probably involved. Maybe some nuke tech too. Possibly, but highly unlikely. The juice (missiles) isn’t worth the squeeze (all of the equations would change). That’s what Russia wants. Israel is the west’s pain point. A regional war that goes hot, or even nuclear, isn’t a problem for Russia but is for the west. Also don’t discount historical Russian anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in actual foreign policy decisions. Ehh, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that Russia wouldn’t have a problem with Iran nuking Israel if they helped them with the process. They would want to be tied to that for some missiles? If so, they are days away from collapsing and the missiles are the only thing that is going to save them. That’s the cost/benefit level we are talking about. Russia was already (most likely) willing to help HAMAS kill 1300 Israelis, purely to divert western bandwidth from Ukraine. Regional war in the middle east is October 7 on steroids. If they were desperate enough a year ago how much more desperate are they now or a year from now? Take the worst-case scenario, Russia helps Iran build deliverable nukes and Iran uses them on Israel. Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. If Iran gets off a nuke and then Israel launches a major nuclear retaliation against Iran, do they launch on Russia? Because while Iran might be more or less helpless after the first blow, Russia would erase Israel. So Israel has an incentive not to retaliate against Russia for an Iranian attack that Russia facilitated. And if Iran doesn’t get off a nuke strike (which is the most likely) because Israel destroys their facilities, then we’re looking at a regional missile war plus Iranian proxies. Which again is perfectly agreeable to Russia and even diverts pressure from Assad in Syria. If there’s a downside for Russia in a regional war in the middle east, I don’t know what it is. At least looking at it from their perspective, the upsides outweigh the downsides by a significant degree. No consequences if Israel doesn’t survive? Just an “oh well” from the rest of the world? No consequences *for Russia.* They’ve already gone all in on “fuck you we’re barbarians and we’ll nuke the world if we don’t get our way!” Everyone knows that WW3 in Europe is around the corner. It’s objectively beneficial to them. Why would they care about anyone’s opinion? Even if they do, there will still be nations than don’t GAF and will buy cheap Russian oil. Not to mention that the most likely outcome is Israel attacks Iran first and wipes out their nuclear facilities, resulting in a regional missile/proxy war, again much to Russia’s benefit with limited to no downsides as they see it. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:41:50 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. The more likely Israel is to be wiped off the map, the more likely they will take everyone responsible with them. They might not be able to glass the whole Russia but the flight time from Tel-Aviv to Moscow is 5h in a commercial airliner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:46:10 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: No consequences *for Russia.* They’ve already gone all in on “fuck you we’re barbarians and we’ll nuke the world if we don’t get our way!” Everyone knows that WW3 in Europe is around the corner. It’s objectively beneficial to them. Why would they care about anyone’s opinion? I think your interpretation of the situation is grossly overestimating Russia’s actual strategic position and underestimating how much billionaires love being billionaires (with everything that brings). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2024 11:49:24 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: The more likely Israel is to be wiped off the map, the more likely they will take everyone responsible with them. They might not be able to glass the whole Russia but the flight time from Tel-Aviv to Moscow is 5h in a commercial airliner. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: Originally Posted By Capta: Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. The more likely Israel is to be wiped off the map, the more likely they will take everyone responsible with them. They might not be able to glass the whole Russia but the flight time from Tel-Aviv to Moscow is 5h in a commercial airliner. And who wants to bet against Mossad (with what we have seen) knowing exactly what is going on with Iran’s nuclear program. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 12:03:17 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: I think your interpretation of the situation is grossly overestimating Russia’s actual strategic position and underestimating how much billionaires love being billionaires (with everything that brings). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fike: Originally Posted By Capta: No consequences *for Russia.* They’ve already gone all in on “fuck you we’re barbarians and we’ll nuke the world if we don’t get our way!” Everyone knows that WW3 in Europe is around the corner. It’s objectively beneficial to them. Why would they care about anyone’s opinion? I think your interpretation of the situation is grossly overestimating Russia’s actual strategic position and underestimating how much billionaires love being billionaires (with everything that brings). If billionaires were running the show in Russia to remain wealthy, the Ukraine war would never have happened or would’ve ended long ago. Yes, some have remained wealthy and some have gotten wealthier, but the net economic consequences are serious. You also have to consider Russian (or anyone’s) perceptions vs realities. There are ten thousand examples in history of people making calculations that they thought were reasonable and probable (at least in their thinking) which ended up being completely wrong and blowing up in their faces. Or they make the best available call and it blows up anyway. History is replete with them. Russia needs to divert western resources and attention at any cost. A regional war against israel is perfect for that and, as they perceive it, has little downside and much upside. Whether that actually turns out to be the case, or instead there are severe unforeseen consequences for Russia is beside the point if they believe it’s the case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 12:10:24 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: The more likely Israel is to be wiped off the map, the more likely they will take everyone responsible with them. They might not be able to glass the whole Russia but the flight time from Tel-Aviv to Moscow is 5h in a commercial airliner. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: Originally Posted By Capta: Does Israel even survive that? Because if they don’t, there are no consequences. The more likely Israel is to be wiped off the map, the more likely they will take everyone responsible with them. They might not be able to glass the whole Russia but the flight time from Tel-Aviv to Moscow is 5h in a commercial airliner. I don’t think it’s likely at all that Israel actually gets nuked. The most likely is that Israel destroys their facilities, soonish, leading to a regional shooting war. Or, think about THIS twist: Russia gives Iran nuke and delivery system tech, allowing Iran to make rapid progress in return for shaheds/missiles/proxy war diversion in the ME. Russia then facilitates Israel’s destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Who wins? Who loses? What are the likely outcomes? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 12:44:38 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: I don’t think it’s likely at all that Israel actually gets nuked. The most likely is that Israel destroys their facilities, soonish, leading to a regional shooting war. Or, think about THIS twist: Russia gives Iran nuke and delivery system tech, allowing Iran to make rapid progress in return for shaheds/missiles/proxy war diversion in the ME. Russia then facilitates Israel’s destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Who wins? Who loses? What are the likely outcomes? As you said a regional war in the Middle East is a win for Russia and no one should be arguing it wouldn’t be. But it’s a massive win for the puppet master which is China. A regional war in the Middle East will tie up the 33% of the US Navy that’s already in the regional. The US will be expending an incredible amount of munitions protecting Israel and most likely bombing Iran. China currently has 203 ships of China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese maritime militia (CMM) as well as Chinese warships in the West Philippine Sea according to the Philippines and the number is growing daily. Some may disagree but they have enough assets in place to wreck Taiwan today. So a Middle East war breaks out. US fights to protect Israel, which we will it’s the reason 33% of the Navy is there now. China decides its go time because why wouldn’t they. Who exactly is going to care that Russia helped Iran or will be able to do anything about it, yep no one. Aid to Ukraine dries up immediately from the US. Big win for Russia if shit gets worse in the Middle East. In the above scenario all our lives here will be greatly affected. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 1:26:34 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: As you said a regional war in the Middle East is a win for Russia and no one should be arguing it wouldn’t be. But it’s a massive win for the puppet master which is China. A regional war in the Middle East will tie up the 33% of the US Navy that’s already in the regional. The US will be expending an incredible amount of munitions protecting Israel and most likely bombing Iran. China currently has 203 ships of China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese maritime militia (CMM) as well as Chinese warships in the West Philippine Sea according to the Philippines and the number is growing daily. Some may disagree but they have enough assets in place to wreck Taiwan today. So a Middle East war breaks out. US fights to protect Israel, which we will it’s the reason 33% of the Navy is there now. China decides its go time because why wouldn’t they. Who exactly is going to care that Russia helped Iran or will be able to do anything about it, yep no one. Aid to Ukraine dries up immediately from the US. Big win for Russia if shit gets worse in the Middle East. In the above scenario all our lives here will be greatly affected. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: Originally Posted By Capta: I don’t think it’s likely at all that Israel actually gets nuked. The most likely is that Israel destroys their facilities, soonish, leading to a regional shooting war. Or, think about THIS twist: Russia gives Iran nuke and delivery system tech, allowing Iran to make rapid progress in return for shaheds/missiles/proxy war diversion in the ME. Russia then facilitates Israel’s destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Who wins? Who loses? What are the likely outcomes? As you said a regional war in the Middle East is a win for Russia and no one should be arguing it wouldn’t be. But it’s a massive win for the puppet master which is China. A regional war in the Middle East will tie up the 33% of the US Navy that’s already in the regional. The US will be expending an incredible amount of munitions protecting Israel and most likely bombing Iran. China currently has 203 ships of China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese maritime militia (CMM) as well as Chinese warships in the West Philippine Sea according to the Philippines and the number is growing daily. Some may disagree but they have enough assets in place to wreck Taiwan today. So a Middle East war breaks out. US fights to protect Israel, which we will it’s the reason 33% of the Navy is there now. China decides its go time because why wouldn’t they. Who exactly is going to care that Russia helped Iran or will be able to do anything about it, yep no one. Aid to Ukraine dries up immediately from the US. Big win for Russia if shit gets worse in the Middle East. In the above scenario all our lives here will be greatly affected. The US clearly wants out of the Middle East. The entire point of the Abraham Accords was to get Israel and the Sunni Arab states to play nice with one another in order to combat Iran, as the desire on the part of the US to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East has plummeted. The whole "pivot to Asia" thing was originally about diverting resources from the Middle East (not Europe) to Asia. Even in light of the current situation, the US is working towards agreements to withdraw troops from Iraq, and that also probably means a withdraw from Syria is going to happen, which the Biden Administration has floated. I also don't see a hypothetical second Trump Administration being super willing to intervene in the Middle East, beyond materially supporting Israel and maybe prodding Iran a bit, should the situation call for it. I go back and forth between in my thinking regarding US presence in the Middle East. In the past, I've advocating for almost entirely withdrawing from the region, on the grounds that it's a chaotic, sectarian nightmare with little to no hope of stability, regardless of what the US does. There also exists the possibility that the US gets drawn into additional conflict there (more or less the discussion of you and Capta's posts) that drains US resources from our responsibilities to great power competition with China and Russia. At the moment, we've somehow managed to get drawn into another extremely controversial Middle Eastern conflict, all while significantly neglecting great power competition. On the other hand, I've almost come to view it similar to Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, in that when the US has tried to disengage, something has filled the vacuum that demands the US return. The last time we started to leave the Middle East to its own devices, Iran pressured Maliki and Assad to start oppressing the Sunni hard, and that caused AQI to storm back in the form of ISIS and accomplish the long-standing Salafi-jihadist goal of establishing a no-shit Islamic State, from which terror attacks all across the globe were launched. I don't really see any easy answers regarding the Middle East. It kind of looks like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me at this point. Apologies if this post is a little disjointed, as it's late and I've been drinking. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 1:43:36 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: The US clearly wants out of the Middle East. The entire point of the Abraham Accords was to get Israel and the Sunni Arab states to play nice with one another in order to combat Iran, as the desire on the part of the US to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East has plummeted. The whole "pivot to Asia" thing was originally about diverting resources from the Middle East (not Europe) to Asia. Even in light of the current situation, the US is working towards agreements to withdraw troops from Iraq, and that also probably means a withdraw from Syria is going to happen, which the Biden Administration has floated. I also don't see a hypothetical second Trump Administration being super willing to intervene in the Middle East, beyond materially supporting Israel and maybe prodding Iran a bit, should the situation call for it. I go back and forth between in my thinking regarding US presence in the Middle East. In the past, I've advocating for almost entirely withdrawing from the region, on the grounds that it's a chaotic, sectarian nightmare with little to no hope of stability, regardless of what the US does. There also exists the possibility that the US gets drawn into additional conflict there (more or less the discussion of you and Capta's posts) that drains US resources from our responsibilities to great power competition with China and Russia. At the moment, we've somehow managed to get drawn into another extremely controversial Middle Eastern conflict, all while significantly neglecting great power competition. On the other hand, I've almost come to view it similar to Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, in that when the US has tried to disengage, something has filled the vacuum that demands the US return. The last time we started to leave the Middle East to its own devices, Iran pressured Maliki and Assad to start oppressing the Sunni hard, and that caused AQI to storm back in the form of ISIS and accomplish the long-standing Salafi-jihadist goal of establishing a no-shit Islamic State, from which terror attacks all across the globe were launched. I don't really see any easy answers regarding the Middle East. It kind of looks like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me at this point. Apologies if this post is a little disjointed, as it's late and I've been drinking. Trump as of last week still repeating no nukes for Iran You all can argue with me till you turn blue but to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program requires ground forces in Iran - that’s per internal DOD Air strikes won’t be enough  Donald Trump warns Israel is 'gone' if Iran gets a nuclear weapon |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 1:45:28 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: The US clearly wants out of the Middle East. The entire point of the Abraham Accords was to get Israel and the Sunni Arab states to play nice with one another in order to combat Iran, as the desire on the part of the US to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East has plummeted. The whole "pivot to Asia" thing was originally about diverting resources from the Middle East (not Europe) to Asia. Even in light of the current situation, the US is working towards agreements to withdraw troops from Iraq, and that also probably means a withdraw from Syria is going to happen, which the Biden Administration has floated. I also don't see a hypothetical second Trump Administration being super willing to intervene in the Middle East, beyond materially supporting Israel and maybe prodding Iran a bit, should the situation call for it. I go back and forth between in my thinking regarding US presence in the Middle East. In the past, I've advocating for almost entirely withdrawing from the region, on the grounds that it's a chaotic, sectarian nightmare with little to no hope of stability, regardless of what the US does. There also exists the possibility that the US gets drawn into additional conflict there (more or less the discussion of you and Capta's posts) that drains US resources from our responsibilities to great power competition with China and Russia. At the moment, we've somehow managed to get drawn into another extremely controversial Middle Eastern conflict, all while significantly neglecting great power competition. On the other hand, I've almost come to view it similar to Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, in that when the US has tried to disengage, something has filled the vacuum that demands the US return. The last time we started to leave the Middle East to its own devices, Iran pressured Maliki and Assad to start oppressing the Sunni hard, and that caused AQI to storm back in the form of ISIS and accomplish the long-standing Salafi-jihadist goal of establishing a no-shit Islamic State, from which terror attacks all across the globe were launched. I don't really see any easy answers regarding the Middle East. It kind of looks like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me at this point. Apologies if this post is a little disjointed, as it's late and I've been drinking. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jaehaerys: Originally Posted By GoldenMead: Originally Posted By Capta: I don’t think it’s likely at all that Israel actually gets nuked. The most likely is that Israel destroys their facilities, soonish, leading to a regional shooting war. Or, think about THIS twist: Russia gives Iran nuke and delivery system tech, allowing Iran to make rapid progress in return for shaheds/missiles/proxy war diversion in the ME. Russia then facilitates Israel’s destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Who wins? Who loses? What are the likely outcomes? As you said a regional war in the Middle East is a win for Russia and no one should be arguing it wouldn’t be. But it’s a massive win for the puppet master which is China. A regional war in the Middle East will tie up the 33% of the US Navy that’s already in the regional. The US will be expending an incredible amount of munitions protecting Israel and most likely bombing Iran. China currently has 203 ships of China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese maritime militia (CMM) as well as Chinese warships in the West Philippine Sea according to the Philippines and the number is growing daily. Some may disagree but they have enough assets in place to wreck Taiwan today. So a Middle East war breaks out. US fights to protect Israel, which we will it’s the reason 33% of the Navy is there now. China decides its go time because why wouldn’t they. Who exactly is going to care that Russia helped Iran or will be able to do anything about it, yep no one. Aid to Ukraine dries up immediately from the US. Big win for Russia if shit gets worse in the Middle East. In the above scenario all our lives here will be greatly affected. The US clearly wants out of the Middle East. The entire point of the Abraham Accords was to get Israel and the Sunni Arab states to play nice with one another in order to combat Iran, as the desire on the part of the US to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East has plummeted. The whole "pivot to Asia" thing was originally about diverting resources from the Middle East (not Europe) to Asia. Even in light of the current situation, the US is working towards agreements to withdraw troops from Iraq, and that also probably means a withdraw from Syria is going to happen, which the Biden Administration has floated. I also don't see a hypothetical second Trump Administration being super willing to intervene in the Middle East, beyond materially supporting Israel and maybe prodding Iran a bit, should the situation call for it. I go back and forth between in my thinking regarding US presence in the Middle East. In the past, I've advocating for almost entirely withdrawing from the region, on the grounds that it's a chaotic, sectarian nightmare with little to no hope of stability, regardless of what the US does. There also exists the possibility that the US gets drawn into additional conflict there (more or less the discussion of you and Capta's posts) that drains US resources from our responsibilities to great power competition with China and Russia. At the moment, we've somehow managed to get drawn into another extremely controversial Middle Eastern conflict, all while significantly neglecting great power competition. On the other hand, I've almost come to view it similar to Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, in that when the US has tried to disengage, something has filled the vacuum that demands the US return. The last time we started to leave the Middle East to its own devices, Iran pressured Maliki and Assad to start oppressing the Sunni hard, and that caused AQI to storm back in the form of ISIS and accomplish the long-standing Salafi-jihadist goal of establishing a no-shit Islamic State, from which terror attacks all across the globe were launched. I don't really see any easy answers regarding the Middle East. It kind of looks like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me at this point. Apologies if this post is a little disjointed, as it's late and I've been drinking. Scotch is a wonderful drug! The thing that has kept the ME simmering for 60 years is our own stupidity. We’ve prevented the Arabs from getting their heads handed to them so many times that there is no reason for them to stop. The best thing we can do is go hands off and let the Arabs get exactly what’s coming to them. When that happens the Arabs will finally make peace, not before. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 1:50:04 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Trump as of last week still repeating no nukes for Iran You all can argue with me till you turn blue but to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program requires ground forces in Iran - that’s per internal DOD Air strikes won’t be enough  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULimTa8byBgQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Originally Posted By Jaehaerys: The US clearly wants out of the Middle East. The entire point of the Abraham Accords was to get Israel and the Sunni Arab states to play nice with one another in order to combat Iran, as the desire on the part of the US to maintain a significant presence in the Middle East has plummeted. The whole "pivot to Asia" thing was originally about diverting resources from the Middle East (not Europe) to Asia. Even in light of the current situation, the US is working towards agreements to withdraw troops from Iraq, and that also probably means a withdraw from Syria is going to happen, which the Biden Administration has floated. I also don't see a hypothetical second Trump Administration being super willing to intervene in the Middle East, beyond materially supporting Israel and maybe prodding Iran a bit, should the situation call for it. I go back and forth between in my thinking regarding US presence in the Middle East. In the past, I've advocating for almost entirely withdrawing from the region, on the grounds that it's a chaotic, sectarian nightmare with little to no hope of stability, regardless of what the US does. There also exists the possibility that the US gets drawn into additional conflict there (more or less the discussion of you and Capta's posts) that drains US resources from our responsibilities to great power competition with China and Russia. At the moment, we've somehow managed to get drawn into another extremely controversial Middle Eastern conflict, all while significantly neglecting great power competition. On the other hand, I've almost come to view it similar to Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, in that when the US has tried to disengage, something has filled the vacuum that demands the US return. The last time we started to leave the Middle East to its own devices, Iran pressured Maliki and Assad to start oppressing the Sunni hard, and that caused AQI to storm back in the form of ISIS and accomplish the long-standing Salafi-jihadist goal of establishing a no-shit Islamic State, from which terror attacks all across the globe were launched. I don't really see any easy answers regarding the Middle East. It kind of looks like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me at this point. Apologies if this post is a little disjointed, as it's late and I've been drinking. Trump as of last week still repeating no nukes for Iran You all can argue with me till you turn blue but to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program requires ground forces in Iran - that’s per internal DOD Air strikes won’t be enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULimTa8byBgIMO there is other leverage, we’re just too reluctant to apply it. Destroy their oil infrastructure and see how their already shit economy does without energy exports. There are other things if that doesn’t do it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2024 1:50:32 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: As you said a regional war in the Middle East is a win for Russia and no one should be arguing it wouldn’t be. But it’s a massive win for the puppet master which is China. A regional war in the Middle East will tie up the 33% of the US Navy that’s already in the regional. The US will be expending an incredible amount of munitions protecting Israel and most likely bombing Iran. China currently has 203 ships of China Coast Guard (CCG) and Chinese maritime militia (CMM) as well as Chinese warships in the West Philippine Sea according to the Philippines and the number is growing daily. Some may disagree but they have enough assets in place to wreck Taiwan today. So a Middle East war breaks out. US fights to protect Israel, which we will it’s the reason 33% of the Navy is there now. China decides its go time because why wouldn’t they. Who exactly is going to care that Russia helped Iran or will be able to do anything about it, yep no one. Aid to Ukraine dries up immediately from the US. Big win for Russia if shit gets worse in the Middle East. In the above scenario all our lives here will be greatly affected. The United Nations inspectors say Iran has not addressed its concerns, the White House says JCPOA is dead and Iran says they’ll only negotiate a return to the original JCPOA which Trump opposed leaving no recourse for diplomacy, this is heading to war https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240902-trump-warns-israel-will-be-gone-if-iran-obtains-nuclear-weapons/amp/ 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
