- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
This seems like sabre rattling.
The message is here is "Look Russia, you're not the only one who can threaten escalation."
Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion
- Thread starter Bohdan Khmelnytsky
- Start date
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Does it? Your own quote seems to disprove it. Her point is that they can keep crossing the red lines to help Ukraine, and they will continue to disregard Russia's warning's. That seems to me like the logical continuation of an already existing policy. This also comes at the heels of big European powers (like France) considering doing the same.
Whether this happens or not, this is still an interesting article imo
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
Yeah she's saying "we can send trainers" and "we're not intimidated by you". It's a rhetorical response to a rhetorical threat. Political sparring.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2020
Particular focus on "trainers", to help train Ukrainian troops. Not front-line soldiers.
It's also interesting that Russia's red lines are seen as valid and violating them is an offense, but Russian sabotage and attacks in NATO territory, not to mention the whole "invading Ukraine" thing, are never even mentioned. Why does Russia have the right to do everything and nobody else has the right to do anything in response? Because Russia has nuclear weapons? So do France and the UK. Russia's nuclear sabre rattling was not undermined by NATO, but by the Russian government itself. If you make dozens of empty threats, people will eventually stop responding, even if you are eventually actually serious for once. Not that I think they are.
I'm with neutral observer and moderate compromiser Slavoj Žižek on this.
link
Edit:
link
Victory Day Parade:
Apparently there were more western weapons in Moscow than Russian ones. No T-14 or T-15, I guess they are all memory-holed anyway. Weird that they don't bother to procure some stuff, surely they can scrape together two dozen armored vehicles to avoid looking so pathetic. I suppose it's down to their schizophrenic line of "West and Ukraine are weak and worthless, but they are an existential threat anyway somehow and fighting them is very difficult, basically like WW II".
The Immortal Regiment was again forbidden from participating, probably because family members of dead soldiers parading with their images is undesirable. It's a pretty cold decision though.
Schizophrenia:
It occurred to me that the Moscow orthodogs claim God is on the side of Russia, but it is Russia that has been hit by unseasonably cold weather year after year since the war started, floods, fires, blood moon, meteor showers, aurora lights, while Europe got mild winters that helped with energy budgets. Maybe get the message.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
I don't think that would do much.
Giving Ukraine nuclear weapons could just be justified as a cause for invasion anyways.
Kiev would also have to be willing to use them, and I doubt that vatnig meatwaves slugging across the donbussy at a snail's pace are worth every city getting hit by Russian nuclear retaliation.
Giving Ukraine nuclear weapons could just be justified as a cause for invasion anyways.
Kiev would also have to be willing to use them, and I doubt that vatnig meatwaves slugging across the donbussy at a snail's pace are worth every city getting hit by Russian nuclear retaliation.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
I like Žižek but he's more of a philosopher than an analyst and more of a stand up comedian than a philosopher. It's best not to take him seriously, he's an IRL shitposter.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2020
Good point, perhaps a direct delivery would be better?
Exactly that is why we should listen! *sniffs nose*
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
That is ironically, Russia's biggest issue with surviving a nuclear exchange: far more of their bases are closer to high-population areas than America's. Once you move away from the populated areas in Russia the infrastructure to support a base drops to about zero, and besides, if your bases are in the middle of nowhere, there's no troops on hand in case a city starts getting uppity for whatever reason.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2021
Oil refinery in Bashkiria, 1,500+km from the borders of Ukraine, gets slowdroned:
Oil base in Krasnodar Krai also got droned:
Oil base in Krasnodar Krai also got droned:
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2019
It certainly makes America's "no cities" doctrine kind of a misnomer, though I think the idea is to use low-yield weapons for targets closer to population centers like that.
(You also ironically want to spare at least some cities during an all-out nuclear exchange).
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Either way, its safe to say both US and Russia lose in a full-blown nuclear exchange.
Which is why I find threats of Russia starting one unfounded bluster.
Which is why I find threats of Russia starting one unfounded bluster.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
Would a carrier even be able to make it through the Bosporus strait?
I've always believed it was a narrow channel full of rocky outcroppings and other nasty shit
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2018
While it was probably fun watching the Republicans in congress defenestrate their own leader once, afterwards the fight for the speakership was all that congress did for three weeks and it came at an extremely inopportune time and so the democrats rebuked MTG unlike last time when they just sat back and watched the fireworks..
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
according to wiki the bridge is around 1.5km long and the clearance below is 65m
i dont know if carriers fit under that bridge
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Possibly. According to a US Navy memo:
Theoretically if they wanted to send a carrier to the Black Sea to fuck with the Russians it wouldn't be empty, and thus would be riding lower in the water. I also don't know what the tides are like in the Bosphorous but it might be possible to wait for a lowest tide as well, I know British carriers do that going under the Forth Bridges:
/ship autism
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
The whole "no cities" thing is a misnomer for everyone.
Once the military targets were hit, economic targets would be next if there hasn't been a surrender/ceasefire called.
Youngstown, Ohio - a small city in the middle of nowhere ohio - was very high on the Soviet hit list if the balloon went up because of the huge amounts of iron ore, coal, and finished steel that transited the town, the rail junctions were the target, the town would just be an unfortunate casualty.
Basically once the silos were hit (or were presumed to be empty having launched the counter strike) and military targets had gotten properly whacked, if the war was still you needed to go after your enemy's war industry. And they might not even wait for battle damage assessment.
Everyone thinks a nuclear war would be a 15 to 30 minute affair. It wouldn't. Again provided there was the will to keep going, you would see follow up strikes for hours or potentially days after.
You might even see nukes being used for the duration of the conflict given that the genie would be out of the bottle at that point.
The US took a lot of steps to move nuke strategic infrastructure away from civilian areas to make sure cities wouldn't be legitimate targets. The USSR....did not.
From my understanding: through the strait, yes if you have a helmsman with brass balls.
under the bridge, no.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
iirc, the estimated secondary or tertiary targets would also include nuclear reactors, not that it changes anything.
Second strike subs can keep the fear going pretty long.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2021
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2019
Some booby-trapped appliances left by the Russians:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2023
I think every nation on Earth that has nuclear weapons wants to get rid of them for good, but can't because there's no way they can be certain everyone else has done the same. You can't win a nuclear war.