Jump to content

Russia


Sentience
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/12/2022 at 8:30 PM, The Phantom said:

Chechen rebellion anyone?

Kadyrov stepped down from fighting a couple of weeks ago and seems to be getting pretty pissed off with the current Russian shitshow.

There's quite a few Chechens fighting with the Ukrainians against the Russians already, some with 20 years experience of fighting them. Discontent sounds like it's growing back home and it would be an ideal time for them to rise up whilst Putin is distracted. 

Big firefight between Russians and Chechens yesterday in Kherson.

Some reports saying Ukrainian partisans kicked it off and in the confusion the Orcs started firing on one another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin mobilising for extra troops and the start of protests in Russia – not unexpected.

Rattling the nuclear sabre again – not that unexpected.

Release of 200 Azov POWs including 5 Brits – surprising.

Negotiations for the release arranged by Saudi Prince MBS – very surprising.

Saudi has retained reasonable relations with Russia due to their OPEC links, but considering MBS wasn’t invited to the Queen’s Funeral, this one certainly seems to have blindsided everyone.

Very weird timings too considering Putin’s announcements yesterday.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally do not understand this at all, why are people fighting? No good comes of it, we know this, we're not dogs. Why don't they just stop? Everyone stop their nonsense and just go home. Tell Putin to go and fight with himself in the mirror if he wants a fight. If everyone said "No!" to the fighting, there would be no one fighting.

It is all incredibly sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 2bees said:

I totally do not understand this at all, why are people fighting? No good comes of it, we know this, we're not dogs. Why don't they just stop? Everyone stop their nonsense and just go home. Tell Putin to go and fight with himself in the mirror if he wants a fight. If everyone said "No!" to the fighting, there would be no one fighting.

It is all incredibly sad.

It's a nice thought.  But as I may have said on here before; no matter where you go or what you do, there is always a dick (and if they're not immediately obvious, then it's probably you); and if their dickish tendencies veer towards violence, unfortunately the only way it can be beaten is with greater or smarter violence.  

If Ukraine had just said 'No' it would be all over now and they'd be part of the USSR again, Moldova would be next, followed probably by Finland, Poland... 

It comes down to our basal tendencies.  Yes, we aren't dogs, but we are evolved only relatively recently (10s of thousands of years is a blink of an eye evolutionarily speaking) from a state where males of our ancestor species fought for survival over food, territory, women, protection of young etc. 

The further we move away from this evolutionary state the worse we become in my opinion.  Yes, we now live in allegedly enlightened times, but it's not working out for us as a species.  Were cavemen depressed, suicidal, or obese?  Did they have a 50:50 chance of getting cancer?  Degenerative brain diseases etc?   This modern construct that we find ourselves now within, we are yet to evolve to inhabit and it is dangerous to us and it's getting worse.  Move around, run, lift heavy things, get dirty, eat healthily, fight, love, be outside.  Fight club called it perfectly, you're staring at a lost generation of men who don't know what to do with themselves anymore that natural male tendencies are vilified.  We're being left behind at school.  Life expectancies are now reducing. If we don't fight, we'll kill ourselves or eat ourselves into oblivion.

Wars are staging grounds for the development and unification of nations.  You watch, Ukraine will become a powerhouse after this.  It's men will be disciplined, have achieved something and have a sense of purpose.  

Edited by The Phantom
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Phantom said:

1. Were cavemen depressed, suicidal, or obese?  2. Did they have a 50:50 chance of getting cancer?  Degenerative brain diseases etc? 

1. Who knows it's hardly as if we are very good at diagnosing depression even now.  They may have committed suicide for all we know. They probably weren't obese though.

2.  These conditions did exist though but for obvious reasons would not have been diagnosed.  They are also more apparent now as we generally survive longer and modern medicine can treat many conditions which would have killed a caveman long before cancer or a degenerative brain disease would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2022 at 4:22 PM, The Phantom said:

Ok, so who blew up the Nordstream pipes? 

I don't really see what Russia would have to gain by blowing them up.  They've shut them down already. 

Just posted this article in local news 

https://news.sky.com/story/sabotage-what-we-know-about-the-nord-stream-gas-leaks-and-who-was-behind-them-12706930

Looks like with those two now out indefinitely (as you say they weren’t being used anyway) that leaves only the Ukrainian energy firm Naftogaz as the main delivery route into the EU. It’s hard to believe the Russians would deliberately put themselves in the position of having to negotiate with a Ukrainian company they have already threatened to sanction in order to continue to deliver gas to Europe.

Edited by Newsdesk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 3:46 PM, The Phantom said:

It's a nice thought.  But as I may have said on here before; no matter where you go or what you do, there is always a dick (and if they're not immediately obvious, then it's probably you); and if their dickish tendencies veer towards violence, unfortunately the only way it can be beaten is with greater or smarter violence.  

If Ukraine had just said 'No' it would be all over now and they'd be part of the USSR again, Moldova would be next, followed probably by Finland, Poland... 

It comes down to our basal tendencies.  Yes, we aren't dogs, but we are evolved only relatively recently (10s of thousands of years is a blink of an eye evolutionarily speaking) from a state where males of our ancestor species fought for survival over food, territory, women, protection of young etc. 

The further we move away from this evolutionary state the worse we become in my opinion.  Yes, we now live in allegedly enlightened times, but it's not working out for us as a species.  Were cavemen depressed, suicidal, or obese?  Did they have a 50:50 chance of getting cancer?  Degenerative brain diseases etc?   This modern construct that we find ourselves now within, we are yet to evolve to inhabit and it is dangerous to us and it's getting worse.  Move around, run, lift heavy things, get dirty, eat healthily, fight, love, be outside.  Fight club called it perfectly, you're staring at a lost generation of men who don't know what to do with themselves anymore that natural male tendencies are vilified.  We're being left behind at school.  Life expectancies are now reducing. If we don't fight, we'll kill ourselves or eat ourselves into oblivion.

Wars are staging grounds for the development and unification of nations.  You watch, Ukraine will become a powerhouse after this.  It's men will be disciplined, have achieved something and have a sense of purpose.  

These days it no longer works like that.

But there is one thing about warfare that has never changed - the need to win.

The much vaunted Red Army, that has cast a shadow over Western Europe since they won the battle of Stalingrad in Feb 1943, has been shown to be no match whatsoever for NATO and it's advanced weaponry. To give you an idea of how outdated their kit is I trained against it!

In modern warfare the ideal battle plan is to manoeuvre your enemy into such a position where they can essentially be massacred from a position of complete safety. Anything less simply leads to unnecessary losses of your own troops. Of course, the "no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy" often gets quoted but it's from the 1870's. These days satellites and drones give commanders in the field real-time information on enemy deployments.

Russian command and control has always been characteristically slow and their logistics are crap. They are also running out of smart munitions. Arraigned against them are HIMARS, Excalibur shells and Northrup Grumman 155mm Precision Guided Kits which replace the standard fuses with a GPS guided steering system. These are highly accurate fire and forget systems and linked with real-time location data makes them highly effective.

As the Russians are finding out...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, P.K. said:

These days it no longer works like that.

But there is one thing about warfare that has never changed - the need to win.

The much vaunted Red Army, that has cast a shadow over Western Europe since they won the battle of Stalingrad in Feb 1943, has been shown to be no match whatsoever for NATO and it's advanced weaponry. To give you an idea of how outdated their kit is I trained against it!

In modern warfare the ideal battle plan is to manoeuvre your enemy into such a position where they can essentially be massacred from a position of complete safety. Anything less simply leads to unnecessary losses of your own troops. Of course, the "no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy" often gets quoted but it's from the 1870's. These days satellites and drones give commanders in the field real-time information on enemy deployments.

Russian command and control has always been characteristically slow and their logistics are crap. They are also running out of smart munitions. Arraigned against them are HIMARS, Excalibur shells and Northrup Grumman 155mm Precision Guided Kits which replace the standard fuses with a GPS guided steering system. These are highly accurate fire and forget systems and linked with real-time location data makes them highly effective.

As the Russians are finding out...

Yeah I said on a different thread I think that Russia doesn't really do NCOs like NATO.  They've got zero skills, training or empowerment, so they can't react tactically.  The Staff COs are having to go to the front to make decisions and this is why so many of them are getting taken out and on such a fluid battlefield such as the recent NE counteroffensive, it is just too slow. 

I was chatting to a guy back from there last week.  He was showing me some shots of Russian howitzer shrapnel recently that wasn't even painted.  They are using so much ordinance that the factories don't have time to paint them before they are dispatched to the front. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 3:46 PM, The Phantom said:

It's a nice thought.  But as I may have said on here before; no matter where you go or what you do, there is always a dick (and if they're not immediately obvious, then it's probably you); and if their dickish tendencies veer towards violence, unfortunately the only way it can be beaten is with greater or smarter violence.  

If Ukraine had just said 'No' it would be all over now and they'd be part of the USSR again, Moldova would be next, followed probably by Finland, Poland...

Wars are staging grounds for the development and unification of nations.  You watch, Ukraine will become a powerhouse after this.  It's men will be disciplined, have achieved something and have a sense of purpose.  

I don't agree with this idea that Russia would be conquering Europe if Ukraine fell.  I haven't come across anything that points to that.  All sounds far fetched.  Ukraine isn't in NATO but Poland is. Any conflict there would be war with the West. Even with Ukraine, it's quite a different thing to conquer another country than it is to impose a client state or friendly state. 

The men may have a sense of purpose and be disciplined after this but from the looks of things this won't be until plenty of men, women, and children continue to be killed. 

There is little noble about this conflict. It's a disaster for Russia, the Ukraine and for Europe. China, the US and India are doing well from it though.

It's just a shame how quiet people are for wanting peace and how in this country (and the UK) there is little thought to the conflict other than vague notion of supporting Ukraine but to what end I don't know. 

What exactly are the Ukraine's aims? I can't see the Ukraine shifting the Russians out of the Donbas, nevermind the Crimea, and then the Ukraine will have to deal with partisan fighting in the Donbas even if it did push the Russians out.  I think the best the Ukraine might get is to accept autonomy for the Donbas within the Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and to stay neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

I don't agree with this idea that Russia would be conquering Europe if Ukraine fell.  I haven't come across anything that points to that.  All sounds far fetched.  Ukraine isn't in NATO but Poland is. Any conflict there would be war with the West. Even with Ukraine, it's quite a different thing to conquer another country than it is to impose a client state or friendly state. 

The men may have a sense of purpose and be disciplined after this but from the looks of things this won't be until plenty of men, women, and children continue to be killed. 

There is little noble about this conflict. It's a disaster for Russia, the Ukraine and for Europe. China, the US and India are doing well from it though.

It's just a shame how quiet people are for wanting peace and how in this country (and the UK) there is little thought to the conflict other than vague notion of supporting Ukraine but to what end I don't know. 

What exactly are the Ukraine's aims? I can't see the Ukraine shifting the Russians out of the Donbas, nevermind the Crimea, and then the Ukraine will have to deal with partisan fighting in the Donbas even if it did push the Russians out.  I think the best the Ukraine might get is to accept autonomy for the Donbas within the Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and to stay neutral.

What a lot of people seem to forget about the rationale for the West helping Ukraine, is that this isn't just some western anti Russian imperial exercise.  Following the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the third biggest haul of nuclear weapons.  It was persuaded to hand them over to Russia by the US, UK and Russia all signing a treaty that guaranteed their protection (hence they wouldn't need the nukes).  However one of those parties seems to have disregarded that.  Unfortunately if the UK & US disregarded this too, what does it mean for any other treaty we've signed up to (e.g. NATO)? 

Russia would 100% take Moldova next if they managed to take all of the South of Ukraine, but Poland and the rest?  Who knows, but Poland, Latvia and Estonia seem to think it likely as they're all bigger backers of Ukraine than the UK or US when it comes to % of GDP vs aid provided. 

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Ukraine's aims?  They want it all back quite justifiably.  They've been dealing with partisan fighting in Donbas for 5 years already.  If Putin gets overthrown back home, I think this is highly possible to regain ALL their territory. If not, then I suspect that some allowances will have to be made. 

This is all assuming that Putin doesn't drop a nuke.  If he does the whole thing is going to change I suspect. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was sensible for the Ukraine to hand those weapons to Russia rather than have new and unstable country holding a lot of nuclear weapons. I'm only saying in case you think there is something unfair about the arrangement. I'm surprised and a little sceptical that any protective assurances genuinely arose because of any agreement on nuclear weapons, as agreements

With what you say about disregarding protective agreements, the US disregarded assurances about expanding NATO and recognised that the Ukraine was Russian's backyard.  It's all well and good the Ukraine turning away from Russia but with US political and military support it is understandable how Russia did this under provocation.

But what Estonia and Latvia worry about doesn't mean something will or is likely to happen. 

I am not sure what you mean about nuclear weapons.  If the use of nuclear weapons ever became close to happening that demonstrates a utter failure of Russian AND western state's handling of this.  The very idea that this conflict could lead to what should be unthinkable says a lot about the problems here.  If this is something that could easily escalate to the use of nuclear weapons then negotiations should have started many months ago involving the US. 

If Putin was to be overthrown then any future Russian regime would likely want to hold on to these annexed regimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...