Russia vs Ukraine

[steelreserve]

I thought Russia had a greater Airforce than Israel, and Israel was considered near US capability. Not arguing the point, I just don't get the tactic.

You would think so, but what we are finding out is that the Russian military looks a lot stronger on paper than it actually is, and their air force is no exception. Seems like they just don't have what it takes to win decisively.

It's interesting you mention Israel, because I was going to say the Six Day War was probably the one time someone other than the U.S. was able to achieve that kind of dominance.

[Orion]

[Orion]

[Mojouw]

You would think so, but what we are finding out is that the Russian military looks a lot stronger on paper than it actually is, and their air force is no exception. Seems like they just don't have what it takes to win decisively.

It's interesting you mention Israel, because I was going to say the Six Day War was probably the one time someone other than the U.S. was able to achieve that kind of dominance.

That's an interesting point.

I wonder if it all has to do with history of development by various nations?

For instance, during and since the second world war, the Soviets and then/now the Russians have always been fairly strong believers in "we have more stuff than you" as a path to victory. There are stories of Zhukov lining up so many artillery pieces for the final push into Germany that they were touching wheels.

In contrast the US and by extension the Israelis have focused on "we don't have as much stuff but what we do have is fancy as all get out". I know that things like the Apache and A10 were all developed because US/NATO warplanners knew they would never field as many tanks as the Soviets/Warsaw Pact...so how to balance that out?

Anyways...not a real comment...and not a real coherent thought....but I think we might just be seeing that because of training and doctrine, the Russian military can only be so effective.

[steelreserve]

That's an interesting point.

I wonder if it all has to do with history of development by various nations?

For instance, during and since the second world war, the Soviets and then/now the Russians have always been fairly strong believers in "we have more stuff than you" as a path to victory. There are stories of Zhukov lining up so many artillery pieces for the final push into Germany that they were touching wheels.

In contrast the US and by extension the Israelis have focused on "we don't have as much stuff but what we do have is fancy as all get out". I know that things like the Apache and A10 were all developed because US/NATO warplanners knew they would never field as many tanks as the Soviets/Warsaw Pact...so how to balance that out?

Anyways...not a real comment...and not a real coherent thought....but I think we might just be seeing that because of training and doctrine, the Russian military can only be so effective.

That's an interesting thought, and there's obviously a lot of truth to it. I wonder whether the reason for that attitude is by choice, or because they just have never had enough shit together, even at their best, to match the technical advances of the U.S. and other countries at the forefront of it. Either way the result is the same, but you look at some of the other big engineering feats outside of the military that they tried to accomplish over the same time period, and a lot of them just came up short. The N1 moon rocket, the Tu-144 "Concordski," nuclear power plant design, civilian cars and trucks, passenger planes, Khruschev's obsession with introducing corn and Western agricultural practices - it seemed like they were trying to win the technological battle or at least keep up, but they didn't have what it took. So I don't know, maybe not for a lack of trying, but they didn't really leave themselves with any other option than the brute-force method.

What's also interesting is that the U.S. was in a similar position at the start of WWII, where a lot of our planes and tanks were inferior to what the Germans had, so the initial response was to lean on our industrial size to outbuild them and outmuscle them, kind of like the Russian approach. But then we also invented our way back to mostly even footing by the time the war was over. I don't know if the message is that we learned our lesson and the Russians didn't, or that we just did a better job.

I wish I could still find that interview with the Soviet general from years ago. He basically said conditions in the military were terrible, not much better than prison, no one really wanted to be there, and you ended up with a bunch of ill-disciplined drunks who were mostly concerned with making it to the end of their service term. Combined with I don't know how many reports you'd always hear from the 1990s onward about how everything in Russia from the military to infrastructure to the space program was chronically underfunded, and I guess it's no surprise that they've fallen even further behind what we consider the "normal" standard.

There was an article on CNN today about what the military intelligence community thinks about the use of so many crude weapons instead of precision guided bombs and overwhelming air power, and one of the major theories was that they just didn't have a very big inventory of precision bombs or cruise missiles because they can't afford too many at a million or two bucks apiece - so you're not going to see them used unless it's on a REALLY important target. So maybe all of this put together is just a reflection of the fact that Russia as a whole has kind of been struggling along under shitty conditions for most of the past century, and oil money and secrecy can only cover up so much of that.

[Mach1]

That's an interesting thought, and there's obviously a lot of truth to it. I wonder whether the reason for that attitude is by choice, or because they just have never had enough shit together, even at their best, to match the technical advances of the U.S. and other countries at the forefront of it. Either way the result is the same, but you look at some of the other big engineering feats outside of the military that they tried to accomplish over the same time period, and a lot of them just came up short. The N1 moon rocket, the Tu-144 "Concordski," nuclear power plant design, civilian cars and trucks, passenger planes, Khruschev's obsession with introducing corn and Western agricultural practices - it seemed like they were trying to win the technological battle or at least keep up, but they didn't have what it took. So I don't know, maybe not for a lack of trying, but they didn't really leave themselves with any other option than the brute-force method.

What's also interesting is that the U.S. was in a similar position at the start of WWII, where a lot of our planes and tanks were inferior to what the Germans had, so the initial response was to lean on our industrial size to outbuild them and outmuscle them, kind of like the Russian approach. But then we also invented our way back to mostly even footing by the time the war was over. I don't know if the message is that we learned our lesson and the Russians didn't, or that we just did a better job.

I wish I could still find that interview with the Soviet general from years ago. He basically said conditions in the military were terrible, not much better than prison, no one really wanted to be there, and you ended up with a bunch of ill-disciplined drunks who were mostly concerned with making it to the end of their service term. Combined with I don't know how many reports you'd always hear from the 1990s onward about how everything in Russia from the military to infrastructure to the space program was chronically underfunded, and I guess it's no surprise that they've fallen even further behind what we consider the "normal" standard.

There was an article on CNN today about what the military intelligence community thinks about the use of so many crude weapons instead of precision guided bombs and overwhelming air power, and one of the major theories was that they just didn't have a very big inventory of precision bombs or cruise missiles because they can't afford too many at a million or two bucks apiece - so you're not going to see them used unless it's on a REALLY important target. So maybe all of this put together is just a reflection of the fact that Russia as a whole has kind of been struggling along under shitty conditions for most of the past century, and oil money and secrecy can only cover up so much of that.

Cue the chemical weapons. And Brandon's answer is to ban sea food.

[Orion]

[Orion]

Cue the chemical weapons. And Brandon's answer is to ban sea food.

ahhhh...the old CIA specialty . chemical weapons .... has there been a conflict that they havent pulled that one out for ? they keep bringing up the cyber attack on the power grid so expect the deep state Dems to shut our electric off soon.

[silver & black]

Pretending to care about Ukraine

https://youtu.be/UMdguYUsKY4

[willy]

Pretending to care about Ukraine

https://youtu.be/UMdguYUsKY4

Hey, at least this guy is kinda funny.

[Shoes]

Finland recommends NATO Europe to follow their example.

The Finno-Soviet Winter War of 1939 ended with Soviet withdrawal, and Luttwak said it should now be a deterrent model for other countries, including Poland and the Baltic nations. “Do not try to stop the invasion,” Luttwak said. “Wait for them to enter your country. Once the tank stops rolling forward, let the soldiers come out to cook or to pee, and then kill them.” Finland suffered during the invasion and conceded territory in the peace treaty that ended the war three months later. But the Soviets lost about seven times as many men, and when they withdrew, they knew that occupying Finland again would mean frostbite, fear, and the chance of getting shot dead in the snow with your pants down.

more here..

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ession/623334/

[Moose]

Anybody know where communist Bernie Sander's is hiding ? In sleepy Joe's basement ?

[Mojouw]

That's an interesting thought, and there's obviously a lot of truth to it. I wonder whether the reason for that attitude is by choice, or because they just have never had enough shit together, even at their best, to match the technical advances of the U.S. and other countries at the forefront of it. Either way the result is the same, but you look at some of the other big engineering feats outside of the military that they tried to accomplish over the same time period, and a lot of them just came up short. The N1 moon rocket, the Tu-144 "Concordski," nuclear power plant design, civilian cars and trucks, passenger planes, Khruschev's obsession with introducing corn and Western agricultural practices - it seemed like they were trying to win the technological battle or at least keep up, but they didn't have what it took. So I don't know, maybe not for a lack of trying, but they didn't really leave themselves with any other option than the brute-force method.

What's also interesting is that the U.S. was in a similar position at the start of WWII, where a lot of our planes and tanks were inferior to what the Germans had, so the initial response was to lean on our industrial size to outbuild them and outmuscle them, kind of like the Russian approach. But then we also invented our way back to mostly even footing by the time the war was over. I don't know if the message is that we learned our lesson and the Russians didn't, or that we just did a better job.

I wish I could still find that interview with the Soviet general from years ago. He basically said conditions in the military were terrible, not much better than prison, no one really wanted to be there, and you ended up with a bunch of ill-disciplined drunks who were mostly concerned with making it to the end of their service term. Combined with I don't know how many reports you'd always hear from the 1990s onward about how everything in Russia from the military to infrastructure to the space program was chronically underfunded, and I guess it's no surprise that they've fallen even further behind what we consider the "normal" standard.

There was an article on CNN today about what the military intelligence community thinks about the use of so many crude weapons instead of precision guided bombs and overwhelming air power, and one of the major theories was that they just didn't have a very big inventory of precision bombs or cruise missiles because they can't afford too many at a million or two bucks apiece - so you're not going to see them used unless it's on a REALLY important target. So maybe all of this put together is just a reflection of the fact that Russia as a whole has kind of been struggling along under shitty conditions for most of the past century, and oil money and secrecy can only cover up so much of that.

That all lines up with the stories and histories I have alway read of at least the Soviets during the Cold War. And why would Putin be doing anything different? He loves that period.

If it wasn't for that massive stockpile of nuclear weapons....would Russia really be something that anyone would care about?

- - - Updated - - -

Finland recommends NATO Europe to follow their example.

The Finno-Soviet Winter War of 1939 ended with Soviet withdrawal, and Luttwak said it should now be a deterrent model for other countries, including Poland and the Baltic nations. “Do not try to stop the invasion,” Luttwak said. “Wait for them to enter your country. Once the tank stops rolling forward, let the soldiers come out to cook or to pee, and then kill them.” Finland suffered during the invasion and conceded territory in the peace treaty that ended the war three months later. But the Soviets lost about seven times as many men, and when they withdrew, they knew that occupying Finland again would mean frostbite, fear, and the chance of getting shot dead in the snow with your pants down.

more here..

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ession/623334/

Helps when you have guys called the "White Death" on your side: https://allthatsinteresting.com/simo-hayha

500-542 confirmed kills in a 100 day conflict over iron sights. Mind boogling.

[Shoes]

Helps when you have guys called the "White Death" on your side: https://allthatsinteresting.com/simo-hayha

500-542 confirmed kills in a 100 day conflict over iron sights. Mind boogling.

Indeed, and don't interrupt their sauna!

[Mojouw]

Indeed, and don't interrupt their sauna!

Ok! Finland is off my world domination invasion list.

[Orion]

[Orion]

here's some little known fact about Putin and russia. Why do you suppose the the west rejected them ? why was / is keeping russia seen as an enemy better than having them as an ally ? hmmmmm...could it have anything to do with those DOD contractors that relieve taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars every year ? or maybe the politicians and generals who get paid to lobby for those contractors for bids and weapons sales dont want to lose those bribes ? i mean if there is no existential threat then they cant justify the defense spending . always gotta have that boogeyman .

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.


The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise Nato as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

[Orion]

[Orion]

[Mach1]

[Orion]

[Orion]

- - - Updated - - -

[Orion]

[EzraTank]

Ukraine's history is fucking complicated. To think of Putin as just the bad guy is crazy.

Here is a great 30 minute video explaining Ukraine's complicated past and how it has/is influenced by both the East and the West.

[EzraTank]

Then you have ASSHOLES like Mitt Romney making stupid statements like this:



And all Tulsi Gabbard said was that she is concerned we have Biological research labs in the Ukraine. Of course Romney (who's never served a day in his life) makes that statement.

Funny how just last week the Undersecretary of State testified in front of Congress this:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/202.../nula-m10.html

And yet we just keep elected morons like Romney over and over ...

[Fire Goodell]

Both parties are doing everything they can to blackball Tulsi Gabbard. It's a shame because she was one of the very few politicians I actually liked. No idea how Kamala was picked as VP over her, Tulsi absolutely destroyed Kamala in the debates.

But yeah any politician who'd actually make a real difference is always shunned. We get pushed the corporate politicians like Biden and Romney all the time, which is why i tend to not vote. We have no choice, and if we do, it's between a shit sandwich or a pile of vomit

[willy]

Military.Com

Army Officer Tulsi Gabbard Faces Ire for Peddling Russian Disinformation About Ukraine Biolabs


Konstantin Toropin


Then Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day rally on Monday, Jan. 20, 2020, in Columbia, S.C. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)Former U.S. representative and current Army Reserve officer Tulsi Gabbard, known for controversial positions that have often been supportive of Russian interests, was accused Sunday of pushing a "treasonous lie" by Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, after her latest social media video promoted a debunked theory about biolabs in Ukraine.

In the video, which was posted to Gabbard's TikTok and other social media accounts, the former congresswoman mischaracterized U.S. support for several dozen former Soviet biolabs in Ukraine, falsely implying that the labs work with diseases like COVID-19 and that the Biden administration had been "trying to cover this up."

The claim is a variation on a Russian disinformation allegation about U.S. support for the labs that dates back to at least 2014, according to EUvsDisinfo, a watchdog group that advises the European Union and its members on disinformation.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...e-biolabs.html

[steelreserve]

Meanwhile this guy knows the score

[willy]

[Mojouw]

Ukraine's history is fucking complicated. To think of Putin as just the bad guy is crazy.

Here is a great 30 minute video explaining Ukraine's complicated past and how it has/is influenced by both the East and the West.

OK. So how should we think of Putin?