If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Putin: "Hey, Moldova. That's a nice breakaway region you have there, it would be a shame if someone annexed it by force"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 151
    More: Interesting, Moldova, Transdniestria, Crimean, Moldovan, democracy  
•       •       •

8534 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2014 at 9:39 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 01:43:44 PM

Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially ...


Russia could easily storm over a NATO allied country. How much of a fight do you think the Baltic states could put up? Russia could knock them over like dominoes. They wouldn't even have to go through a country like Belarus or Ukraine to do it. Now whether or not Russia is willing to do that is another question. I tend to think they wouldn't.
 
2014-03-24 01:50:35 PM
AngryDragon:

Except they have to go through what's left of Ukraine to get there.  You know who else wanted to reunite land that had been separated from them 23 years earlier?  Actually, kinda eerie that the timelines match up.

[i.imgur.com image 850x549]


Interesting, if some map makers had been smart, and cutoff Poland's upraised finger of land & give to the Germans... a world war might have been averted.
Poland should have done the needful, and moved aside.... by voting.

Russia is getting the needful done, by -Voting-

With Voters like these, who needs an army?
"I'm ready to live in a tent, but I'm not ready to submit to the West, to dance to their tune," said Viktor Rudko, a 43-year-old miner.
Voters.
 
2014-03-24 01:54:20 PM

redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially and offer material supp ...

Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).


The Russian army is an ill equiped joke today and already has to use a considerable part of its man power against Chechen rebels.
 
2014-03-24 01:57:43 PM

ShadowKamui: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: Sammichless: redmid17: I'm saying I would be surprised if all NATO members jumped on the bandwagon, especially those right next door to Russia. They'd get steamrolled real quick and most of that 70% comes from one country almost 5000 miles away.

Theoretically NATO member nations don't have a choice in this. You are also giving the Russian military a lot more credit than I think it deserves. Even a shooting war against Ukraine (a poor nation without NATO support) would be expected to be a hard victory for Russia to pull off.

A military victory? No I think Russia would handily take Ukraine in that engagement. The occupation would be what trips them up. Even setting aside what looks like inflated Russian troop numbers, they have at least 4:1 advantage  with respects to tanks, airplanes, helicopters, troop transports, and the like. They can Ukraine without much issue. The Russian military also has recent experience in fighting wars (or occupations). Ukraine hasn't been in a conflict since they (maybe) sent some troops to Afghanistan 30 years ago.

Then again, this is all in a solely Russia vs Ukraine conflict. Theoretically the all members of NATO have to join in, but the EU relies heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil and the eastern members of NATO could be taken fairly quickly with a small fraction of Russian resources. They'd have a free hand for a while, maybe a month or more? It takes time to mobilize troops and/or relocate them from foreign bases and US soil. Russia would would retain land superiority for any shorter conflict, the naval one would tip to NATO fairly quick (6th fleet > Black sea fleet), and the air superiority would be dicey since Russia has a ton of planes, more than the US could realistically get to Europe and maintain for any extended period of time.

Someone already pointed out that Ukraine is not a Western ally. And that NATO will not be sending in troops. The West would likely aid Ukraine financially ...


Are the Ukranians somehow better equipped? And the Chechnyan problem is the same one they ran into in Afghanistan and the same one the US is seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to pin down asymmetric warfare. A fight against Ukraine would not be asymmetric warfare unless Russia wanted to occupy all of Ukraine. Russia would not do that. They'd just take the parts with a Russian majority.
 
2014-03-24 02:12:49 PM

redmid17: Are the Ukranians somehow better equipped? And the Chechnyan problem is the same one they ran into in Afghanistan and the same one the US is seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's hard to pin down asymmetric warfare. A fight against Ukraine would not be asymmetric warfare unless Russia wanted to occupy all of Ukraine. Russia would not do that. They'd just take the parts with a Russian majority.


I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.

I think that they assumed that their actions would have started a shooting war.... and they could pretend that Ukraine started it. If that's true, then I imagine that they are still working on a way to justify taking the rest of Eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, I still don't think that the West should be terribly worried about Putin trying anything against us or our direct allies.
 
2014-03-24 02:15:00 PM
Sammichless:

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

I'm sure Ukraine finds solace in that their suffering is for a greater good. :P
 
2014-03-24 02:21:56 PM

spawn73: Sammichless:

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

I'm sure Ukraine finds solace in that their suffering is for a greater good. :P


Probably not. It is what it is.

I have a question for anyone who may know......

Does our nuclear deterrent protect NATO members from invasion? Do we have an obligation to nuke somebody to protect an ally?
 
2014-03-24 02:24:44 PM

Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: The Russians need lebensraum.

They have that in abundance... this isn't Germany where 20 people have to live in the area of a sardine can.

Each Russian has 20 national parks in his back yard. Huge country...

Russia doesn't need breathing room, it needs a buffer zone.

Russians have some ingrained terror of being invaded.  Especially by Germany.  And to the Russian mind, the best way to keep themselves safe is to put as much room between themselves and their enemies.  That's why they had the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Bloc nations as a big buffer zone between them and NATO.

That's why they freak out when their neighbors want to get cozy and comfy with the West.  They see no buffer between them and enemy armies bearing down on Moscow.


Sad but true they cannot move away from the fears of the past and see that no one wants to invade them, for now t least but if Putin keeps his shiat up that could very well change.

There best bet is to toss Putin and his cronies out of office and put in a government who is willing to embrace the present and not the past.
 
2014-03-24 02:39:36 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."

So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear? If there is a shooting war, I think it much more likely that it gets fought by proxy, non-nuclear states just like Cold War era conflicts, because nobody wants M.A.D.


Sure it is, but mostly because any plan that would get Putin to back down before he starts deploying WMDs is one you would label "instigating a war that would likely go nuclear." It's like how that ignorant warmonger Ronnie Ray-Gun was going to start World War 3, by accident if not by offending Brezhnev with his "Godless Evil Empire" speeches, and we had the consensus of diplomatic experts ranging from Jimmy Carter to Berkeley Breathed declaring this to be true.

Yet, somehow, WW3 never started, and the Berlin Wall fell instead. Must have been accident, or maybe even invisible sky wizards, because it could never have been the neocons having a better understanding of Russia than the Lenin-worshipping liberal intellectuals.

/even the chick that can see Russia from her house had a better understanding of Russia than this administration's State Department
//and that is what should really scare you
///what scares me is the lengths the State Department will go to, to rewrite history to pretend they never trusted Putin or offered him a "reset button"
 
2014-03-24 02:42:30 PM

Pattuq: ArkPanda: Infernalist: CleanAndPure: TheGregiss: 

The USSR requested to join NATO once, and received the 1950s version of "LOL" as a response.


Yes and no. They wanted to join NATO so they could essentially neuter it. But yes:  http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-jo i n-nato-march-1954
 
2014-03-24 02:43:32 PM

Sammichless: That is what I've been saying in these threads.

Some people seem so concerned that Putin is the world's next Hitler..... They don't seem to realize that Russia is not even close to being a military threat to the West. His land grabs in nations that aren't allied with NATO may (or arguably may not) be helping strengthen Russia.

But, even if Russia is benefitting from their aggression..... the West STILL has nothing to fear from Russia. They command 9.5% of the World's military strength (a number that is pumped up by using conscripted soldiers in their military)..... NATO commands 70% of the World's military strength.


On paper, 1938 Germany couldn't take 1938 France, let alone Belgium, France, Austria, Poland, and the UK.

Unfortunately, wars aren't fought on paper.
 
2014-03-24 02:46:35 PM

Tatterdemalian: UrukHaiGuyz: Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."

So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear? If there is a shooting war, I think it much more likely that it gets fought by proxy, non-nuclear states just like Cold War era conflicts, because nobody wants M.A.D.

Sure it is, but mostly because any plan that would get Putin to back down before he starts deploying WMDs is one you would label "instigating a war that would likely go nuclear." It's like how that ignorant warmonger Ronnie Ray-Gun was going to start World War 3, by accident if not by offending Brezhnev with his "Godless Evil Empire" speeches, and we had the consensus of diplomatic experts ranging from Jimmy Carter to Berkeley Breathed declaring this to be true.

Yet, somehow, WW3 never started, and the Berlin Wall fell instead. Must have been accident, or maybe even invisible sky wizards, because it could never have been the neocons having a better understanding of Russia than the Lenin-worshipping liberal intellectuals.

/even the chick that can see Russia from her house had a better understanding of Russia than this administration's State Department
//and that is what should really scare you
///what scares me is the lengths the State Department will go to, to rewrite history to pretend they never trusted Putin or offered him a "reset button"


So you're upset that there aren't enough angry speeches decrying the evils of Russia? Reagan didn't make those for the sake of any diplomatic goal. The only possible impact that could have is to shore up domestic support for an adversarial stance- one more likely to lead to war or stalemate. Feel-good demonizing of the Russians does nothing to stabilize the situation.

The fact is that we won't go to war over a non-NATO country, especially with a large nuclear power. If and when Russia violates the territorial sanctity of a NATO member state, all bets are off. That hasn't happened yet, and I hope it doesn't. A lot of people would die.
 
2014-03-24 02:46:44 PM

Sammichless: I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.


I wonder if Ukraine would let them do that, considering they maintain an active pile of old Russian plutonium which could be quickly sown into that farmland, ensuring nothing edible grows there for another millennia.
 
2014-03-24 02:55:05 PM
redmid17: Sammichless: Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).

Actually, no. In spring, the Ukraine is one giant bog. Tanks and infantry moving across a bog will get stuck. Keep to the roads, they'll be picked off by air cover. And which side would come out on top with respect to air superiority is anyone's guess. Even operating from forward airbases, the Ukrainians will see the Russian's coming. The two sides are fighting with essentially the same equipment. And neither side has had a recent record of air combat to base a decision on.

If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.
 
2014-03-24 03:00:02 PM

This text is now purple: Sammichless: I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.

I wonder if Ukraine would let them do that, considering they maintain an active pile of old Russian plutonium which could be quickly sown into that farmland, ensuring nothing edible grows there for another millennia.


Plutonium isn't really all that bad. It's about as poisonous as caffeine... in solid form. It has a pretty long half life, so while you will get a neutron count, it's comparable to background.

Now, plutonium in vapor form is a whole different matter.

What makes radioactive fallout so nasty isn't the leftover nuclear material in the bomb itself. Its the radioactive byproduct they create that mimic other metals. Their chemical similarity to calcium and iodine allow them to be absorbed readily into the body. Their short half-lives mean that once they get in there, they decay quickly into all sorts of nasty things you don't want near live tissue.
 
2014-03-24 03:00:14 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: Comparing Finland in the dead of winter in the mid 1940s with an ill-equipped Russian military to the current situation in Ukraine is a folly. Russia doesn't have to send their entire military. If they send half they still dwarf Ukraine's forces and have total air superiority. Also I'm not buying Russia's army as less trained than Ukraine's army. They haven't seen any combat and their budget is a fraction of Russia's (even with the equipment and number disparity).

Actually, no. In spring, the Ukraine is one giant bog. Tanks and infantry moving across a bog will get stuck. Keep to the roads, they'll be picked off by air cover. And which side would come out on top with respect to air superiority is anyone's guess. Even operating from forward airbases, the Ukrainians will see the Russian's coming. The two sides are fighting with essentially the same equipment. And neither side has had a recent record of air combat to base a decision on.

If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.


Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-24 03:12:34 PM

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]


"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."
 
2014-03-24 03:13:28 PM

TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.


Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?


I believe NATO is talking about putting anti-missile batteries in the Ukraine.
 
2014-03-24 03:14:38 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]

"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."


Yeah Russia could bring a 1/3 of their air force and still outnumber the Ukranian air force by 3:1. Invading and winning would be simple. Russia wouldn't bother with the parts of Ukraine that didn't have a sharp ethnic Russian majority.
 
2014-03-24 03:14:41 PM

JSTACAT: AngryDragon:

Except they have to go through what's left of Ukraine to get there.  You know who else wanted to reunite land that had been separated from them 23 years earlier?  Actually, kinda eerie that the timelines match up.

[i.imgur.com image 850x549]

Interesting, if some map makers had been smart, and cutoff Poland's upraised finger of land & give to the Germans... a world war might have been averted.
Poland should have done the needful, and moved aside.... by voting.

Russia is getting the needful done, by -Voting-

With Voters like these, who needs an army?
"I'm ready to live in a tent, but I'm not ready to submit to the West, to dance to their tune," said Viktor Rudko, a 43-year-old miner.
Voters.


Um...yeah.  Those weren't poll workers infiltrating the Crimea leading up to that "fair and democratic referendum"

Once you have infantry, armor, naval, and air power in the bases of a country and enforcing a de facto occupation, you lose the ability to say that it was the choice of the people.  This was an invasion and annexation at a stunning speed.

What is Russian for blitzkreig anyway?
 
2014-03-24 03:15:28 PM

SlothB77: Does Moldova have oil?


No and by itself is not even worth one army a turn.
 
2014-03-24 03:18:21 PM

Paris1127: [idlewords.com image 850x637]
For now, I'd be happy with the Moldovans getting everything on the right bank of the Dniester (facing downstream, in this case south) and the Transnistrians getting everything on the left. Bender should be in Moldova, not occupied by the Transnistrians...

/possibly biased because my family comes from the former Bessarabia
//great-grandfather born in Bender (aka Tighina), fled pogroms in Kishinev (now Chisinau) instigated by Russians who now dominate Transnistria
///he wound up in Ohio. Hadn't he suffered enough?


www.mrwallpaper.com
 
2014-03-24 03:32:29 PM

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]

"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."

Yeah Russia could bring a 1/3 of their air force and still outnumber the Ukranian air force by 3:1. Invading and winning would be simple. Russia wouldn't bother with the parts of Ukraine that didn't have a sharp ethnic Russian majority.


You can't just decide one morning to call up 1/3 of your air power and concentrate it on one sector of air space. You need fuel. You need air traffic control. You need runways. And P.S. there are a finite number of sorties that can be flown from said runways.

The US had an advantage in the first Iraq war: it had stealth, and the Iraqis had no counter for it.

Russia attacking the Ukraine would by more like the Germans in the Battle of Britain. Numerically superior, but always being countered by the British early warning radars, and the home field advantage. And unlike the battle of Britain, ground based anti-aircraft weapons have been refined to a high art.
 
2014-03-24 03:41:24 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Sammichless: 
Russia has a huge advantage in planes and helicopters, and they can stand ground force losses more than Ukraine can.

[i.imgur.com image 850x595]

"Total" strength is not the same as the strength they can bring to bare in one particular theater against one particular enemy. Troops that are occupied occupying other regions cannot be called on. Tanks do not matter if you do not control the sky. Helicopters would be cut to pieces by fixes wing aircraft. And the Vietnamese more or less proved that with the home field advantage, you make life hell for an incoming air force with SAMs and FLAC. The fact that the Ukrainians have a few hundred strike aircraft is icing on the cake.

And besides, invading is the easy part. Occupation... that's where you have to look and say "NO farkING WAY."

Yeah Russia could bring a 1/3 of their air force and still outnumber the Ukranian air force by 3:1. Invading and winning would be simple. Russia wouldn't bother with the parts of Ukraine that didn't have a sharp ethnic Russian majority.

You can't just decide one morning to call up 1/3 of your air power and concentrate it on one sector of air space. You need fuel. You need air traffic control. You need runways. And P.S. there are a finite number of sorties that can be flown from said runways.

The US had an advantage in the first Iraq war: it had stealth, and the Iraqis had no counter for it.

Russia attacking the Ukraine would by more like the Germans in the Battle of Britain. Numerically superior, but always being countered by the British early warning radars, and the home field advantage. And unlike the battle of Britain, ground based anti-aircraft weapons have been refined to a high art.


Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces have joined the Russians. There goes a solid chunk of the possible defense force. They have the Ukranian air force commander in custody.

Between the huge ground push and the numerical superiority in the air, the Ukranians would be overwhelmed quickly.
 
2014-03-24 03:47:41 PM

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...


So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.
 
2014-03-24 03:53:29 PM
Evil Twin Skippy:
Actually, no. In spring, the Ukraine is one giant bog. Tanks and infantry moving across a bog will get stuck. Keep to the roads, they'll be picked off by air cover. And which side would come out on top with respect to air superiority is anyone's guess. Even operating from forward airbases, the Ukrainians will see the Russian's coming. The two sides are fighting with essentially the same equipment. And neither side has had a recent record of air combat to base a decision on.

If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.


yes, because your stupid make believe internet hypothetical war is based on reality.
 
2014-03-24 03:56:51 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...

So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.


No I read it. I just think you're wrong, and I think it's pretty obvious.
 
2014-03-24 04:00:44 PM

redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...

So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.

No I read it. I just think you're wrong, and I think it's pretty obvious.


Wars are not won and lost by considering the obvious. They are won and lost by the thousands of non-intuitive outcomes that benefit the victor and hinder the loser.
 
2014-03-24 04:05:17 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: Evil Twin Skippy: redmid17: 

Russia has managed to muster 250K soldiers on the Ukraine border. They have huge oil resources in hand. They control all the military bases in the Crimean peninsula and 50% of those Ukranian armed forces ...

So in other words, you haven't read on word I posted about the hazards of terrain on the ground war nor the uncertain outcome of an air war, and how even a numerical advantage can become a disadvantage in short order.

Here's a gold star for effort.

No I read it. I just think you're wrong, and I think it's pretty obvious.

Wars are not won and lost by considering the obvious. They are won and lost by the thousands of non-intuitive outcomes that benefit the victor and hinder the loser.


Yes and Russia would be fighting a low-morale, rapidly imploding Ukraine with just about every advantage I can think of outside of terrain. If they wait two months, then that won't really be an issue either.
 
2014-03-24 04:06:10 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: This text is now purple: Sammichless: I really do wonder if that is their plan..... Russia could certainly use the farmland.

I wonder if Ukraine would let them do that, considering they maintain an active pile of old Russian plutonium which could be quickly sown into that farmland, ensuring nothing edible grows there for another millennia.

Plutonium isn't really all that bad. It's about as poisonous as caffeine... in solid form. It has a pretty long half life, so while you will get a neutron count, it's comparable to background.

Now, plutonium in vapor form is a whole different matter.

What makes radioactive fallout so nasty isn't the leftover nuclear material in the bomb itself. Its the radioactive byproduct they create that mimic other metals. Their chemical similarity to calcium and iodine allow them to be absorbed readily into the body. Their short half-lives mean that once they get in there, they decay quickly into all sorts of nasty things you don't want near live tissue.


Not that.

This.
www.subbrit.org.uk

Russia's other little gift to Ukraine. Maybe it's time to give it back.
 
2014-03-24 04:09:22 PM

spawn73: If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.

yes, because your stupid make believe internet hypothetical war is based on reality.


When in their history hasn't Russia attacked when they thought they could win?
 
2014-03-24 04:19:52 PM

Pattuq: The USSR requested to join NATO once, and received the 1950s version of "LOL" as a response.


Awesome, I'd never heard that before.
 
2014-03-24 04:23:19 PM
In these threads, people often mistakenly believe Putin's decisions are based on what's best for Russia, instead of what's best for him personally.
 
2014-03-24 04:26:47 PM

spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.


Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.
 
2014-03-24 04:34:51 PM

BigNumber12: spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.

Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.


My dad was in Dublin for business and took a quick roundtrip flight to Bratislava for 40-50 bucks on Ryanair after bumping back his normal return flight. He only spent a few hours there. He just wanted to say he did it. Crazy part is he had to pretty much leave Dublin right after he got back from Bratislava.
 
2014-03-24 04:34:55 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear?


No, no it wouldn't. Russia isn't going to initiate MAD over farking Ukraine. Its leaders are quite happy with the personal riches they've amassed with their little criminal empire - they aren't going to burn that all to the ground over wounded pride. They'll lick those wounds and plan their next excursion in a few years.
 
2014-03-24 04:44:39 PM

BigNumber12: UrukHaiGuyz: So your brilliant plan to avoid nuclear war is....to instigate a war that would likely go nuclear?

No, no it wouldn't. Russia isn't going to initiate MAD over farking Ukraine. Its leaders are quite happy with the personal riches they've amassed with their little criminal empire - they aren't going to burn that all to the ground over wounded pride. They'll lick those wounds and plan their next excursion in a few years.


I don't think they would either unless provoked. The post I was responding to was of the blustery type that implied a shooting war between the West and Russia is in order. I maintain it's a terrible idea- if we must go to war, let it be because Putin actually violates the territory of a NATO member.
 
2014-03-24 05:02:10 PM
/even the chick that can see Russia from her house Tina Fey had a better understanding of Russia than hork blaahh durpity doooo

i.imgur.com

/gods, look how stupid you are
 
2014-03-24 05:04:39 PM

This text is now purple: spawn73: If Russia thought they had a decided advantage, odds are they would have pressed it.

yes, because your stupid make believe internet hypothetical war is based on reality.

When in their history hasn't Russia attacked when they thought they could win?


Just the last week they didn't attack Belarussia 7 times.

/you're probably trolling.
 
2014-03-24 05:51:08 PM
Let you kiddies forget what some of us lived through.

There's a reason why this is fairly terrifying to the veterans.
 
2014-03-24 06:14:16 PM

redmid17: BigNumber12: spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.

Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.

My dad was in Dublin for business and took a quick roundtrip flight to Bratislava for 40-50 bucks on Ryanair after bumping back his normal return flight. He only spent a few hours there. He just wanted to say he did it. Crazy part is he had to pretty much leave Dublin right after he got back from Bratislava.


Hah, I'd say that the whole thing is "the crazy part."
 
2014-03-24 06:27:01 PM

BigNumber12: redmid17: BigNumber12: spawn73: Kinda like Bratislava in Eurotrip.

Ugh, we've done two two-week trips based around Vienna, and came SO CLOSE to doing a day-trip to Bratislava, just for kicks. Would have been interesting at the very least.

My dad was in Dublin for business and took a quick roundtrip flight to Bratislava for 40-50 bucks on Ryanair after bumping back his normal return flight. He only spent a few hours there. He just wanted to say he did it. Crazy part is he had to pretty much leave Dublin right after he got back from Bratislava.

Hah, I'd say that the whole thing is "the crazy part."


Can't disagree there. My dad could also be classified as the crazy part.
 
2014-03-24 07:02:43 PM

namegoeshere: He really does have super villain fantasies, doesn't he.

/maniacal laugh
//maniacal laugh


Maybe he's gone insane or has a brain tumour or something.
 
2014-03-24 08:34:39 PM

germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.


THIS.
 
2014-03-24 10:12:33 PM
i36.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-25 01:01:43 AM

sweetmelissa31: Moldova is a total sh*thole- it's the poorest country in Europe and was ranked the unhappiest country in the world. Men have to move to other countries to find jobs, and many of the women are used for human trafficking. I'd rather be part of Russia too.


Sounds like Mexico.
 
2014-03-25 02:35:39 AM

Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.


Have you ever noticed that the people who scream the loudest for International Manly Man Action are all old, pudgy, soft-handed, white elitists who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, much less served?
 
2014-03-25 07:18:23 AM

TheGregiss: germ78: Perhaps all these places with Russian minorities should round up all the Russians and put them on one-way trains back to the homeland? Especially if keeping them around means Russia is going to annex you by force.

THIS.


Also, "how to get kicked out of the EU".

Be nice to your minorities, or you'll revert back to asshole of Europe status like Moldova and Albania.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:49 AM

Sammichless: spawn73: Sammichless:

Putin does not have to lose for us to win. His actions might be helping Russia, but, they're helping out the West much more.

I'm sure Ukraine finds solace in that their suffering is for a greater good. :P

Probably not. It is what it is.

I have a question for anyone who may know......

Does our nuclear deterrent protect NATO members from invasion? Do we have an obligation to nuke somebody to protect an ally?


The US is under no obligation to nuke another country for even invading the US. One would hope conventional means would be used to repel an invasion of any country before nukes were just automatically set off.

The US does invite allies to come under the US nuclear umbrella though with the idea that if their defense is backed up by US nuclear arms they will not need to develop their own nuclear arms. It's a means of nuclear nonproliferation by greatly reducing the number of countries who "need" nukes. So, if a major US ally was attacked with nuclear weapons, then yes, the United States would be under a lot of pressure to retaliate in a major way.
 
2014-03-25 07:19:12 PM

Tatterdemalian: TheGregiss: Some asshole said I was a Neocon for opposing Putin's military expansion.

Am I still a Neocon for thinking Putin is a bad guy with expansionist aims?

Yes, but the liberals are getting desperate enough for someone (who isn't liberal and therefore actually willing to fight and die in their place) to deal with Bad Ass Vlad that they're not throwing that label around any more.

/eventually they'll get scared enough to actually listen to our advice
//probably won't be till after the first nuclear exchange
///at which point the only advice we'll be able to offer is, "Pull your head out of your anus just long enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Oh, and WE TOLD YOU SO."


Keep stroking yourself while imagining that day.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report