Russia is now bombing Ukraine

[may be rude]

13 hours ago, ignatius said:

22 hours ago, may be rude said:

the people at the bulwark are the ones watching for any sign of hope inside the republican party and sounding the alarm that it looks like the republican party as conservatives knew it does not seem to be coming back. it seems to have been consumed and to now be the party of trump. it's important to get these inside takes. 

to be fair. this is not an "inside take"

to me and you. a lot of people don't yet realize that it's now the party of trump. anyway these are actual election professionals measuring data with skills and providing shrewd insight based on the latest state of play. not saying it's secret, i said "inside" because it's a different perspective of the same phenomenon and maybe closer to it.

Edited May 30 by may be rude

[decibal cooper]

These past two weeks there has been discussion and debate about whether or not to send sophisticated long-range missiles (maybe Ukraine already has these?) and specifically if the US and NATO allies will give permission for Ukraine to use them to strike inside of Russian territory (instead of only using them within the territory that Russia has annexed which belonged to Ukraine before the invasion).

Also a couple of months ago, the French president Macron discussed very openly the idea of sending French troops to Ukraine to fight, and the German leaders had to do a presser the next day saying basically 'yeah, that is definitely not happening.' I've also heard people suggest that the disagreements between NATO leaders about this issue is growing, that real cracks are starting to show (i.e. it is not just Hungary at one end of the table who disagrees with western support for the war in these terms), and that the disagreements between NATO countries are not really being reported on in the west. I honestly have no idea to what extent this is true, but I would not be surprised if NATO's shelf life, that its expiration date may be approaching within next decade, and that the outcome of this Russia/Ukraine conflict will be a decisive factor. Say what you will about NATO, but it probably goes a long way in preventing European countries from fighting amongst themselves like was seen in World War II.

Anyhoo, Putin has been rattling his swords warning the west not to allow their weapons to strike within Russia. He also interestingly said that the specific weapons that they are thinking about using need to be programmed and prepared for such strikes (this requires much training) and that the Western powers could handle this themselves and prepare everything before shipment to Ukraine so that the Ukrainian handlers of the weapons need not do anything on their own except press a button to fire them. In his mind this would be direct engagement by Western powers against Russia instead of the current proxy situation. Lots of room here for potential escalation, miscalculations, and just needless death in my opinion.

I wonder what would happen if Ukraine strikes within Russian territory and Russia decides to use tactical nukes on Ukraine? Ukraine is not currently a NATO country, so Article 5 does not apply to them. Would America and NATO countries then openly and directly engage with Russia on the battlefield? What would that escalation ladder look like? Would the west use nukes or aerial bombardment of some kind against Russia openly?

What a goddamned mess this conflict is! Also, there is going to be a peace summit addressing this war in Switzerland soon. Russia has not been invited. Biden also is going to be busy fundraising in Hollywood on that date, so American leadership at the highest level will not be present. I honestly do not get having a peace summit for a war and not inviting one of the countries who is directly engaged in the war. Has a real public relations stink about it if you ask me.

[ignatius]

i thought france already said "go for it" as did Germany?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-german-leaders-say-ukraine-allowed-strike-inside-russia-2024-05-28/

 

Quote

 

Scholz said he agreed with Macron and that as long as Ukraine respected the conditions given by countries that supplied the weapons, including the United States, and international law, it was allowed to defend itself.

"Ukraine has every possibility under international law for what it is doing. That has to be said explicitly," Scholz said.

"I find it strange when some people argue that it should not be allowed to defend itself and take measures that are suitable for this."

 

 

[decibal cooper]

20 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i thought france already said "go for it" as did Germany?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-german-leaders-say-ukraine-allowed-strike-inside-russia-2024-05-28/

 

 

I think they (Ukraine) are still waiting on America to give the go-ahead or not to use those weapons to strike Russian territory. America on the fence because of escalation fears was my understanding.

[may be rude]

the west will let ukraine use weapons to strike in russia because it's ridiculous not to. cowering to aggressors is not good practice. it's only because of diligent caution that conditions were attached to use of arms up to this point, but a change to that policy is something strategists would have been planning all along.  

putin will find ways to troll nato but he does not want a war with nato because he would go down in history as a madman idiot, because that's what he is, and he'll get the shit kicked out of him and he'll die in misery and disgrace, ruining the world he's lived in

ukraine will push him out and he'll try to maintain a syria-like state in russia, desperately poor and brutally oppressed. he'll nuke his own people before anyone else. 

 

Edited May 30 by may be rude

[decibal cooper]

I do not even think that Ukraine even needs to have those long range nato missiles to target the radar systems that Russia uses to detect incoming ballistic missiles (the kinds that can have nukes attached). No. No need to really pin Putin in the corner and fear for Russia's security at an existential level like that, make his military operationally blind to a potential first strike. I'd prefer a much subtler approach.

Everyone knows that Putin and Steven Seagal are homies, that they go way back, all those official state visits and whatnot. What America should do is kidnap Seagal, do some Manchurian candidate type brainwashing on him, and then send him to Russia to do the killing to Putin. I am sure whoever replaces Putin will be good buds with the west and will be less imperial than Putin. I can already see Putin's dying face, the horrible betrayal of his friend Steven, his famous last words, 'Et tu, Steven Seagal?'

[ignatius]

1 hour ago, decibal cooper said:

I do not even think that Ukraine even needs to have those long range nato missiles to target the radar systems that Russia uses to detect incoming ballistic missiles (the kinds that can have nukes attached). No. No need to really pin Putin in the corner and fear for Russia's security at an existential level like that, make his military operationally blind to a potential first strike. I'd prefer a much subtler approach.

Everyone knows that Putin and Steven Seagal are homies, that they go way back, all those official state visits and whatnot. What America should do is kidnap Seagal, do some Manchurian candidate type brainwashing on him, and then send him to Russia to do the killing to Putin. I am sure whoever replaces Putin will be good buds with the west and will be less imperial than Putin. I can already see Putin's dying face, the horrible betrayal of his friend Steven, his famous last words, 'Et tu, Steven Seagal?'

Seagal shit his pants when put in a choke hold. his movies now are even more hilarious. he's seated on a stool/chair for every scene because he's too fat and lazy to stand up. the reddit AMA called him out on all these things. it's archived there and is apparently the shortest AMA in reddit history.

[decibal cooper]

46 minutes ago, ignatius said:

Seagal shit his pants when put in a choke hold. his movies now are even more hilarious. he's seated on a stool/chair for every scene because he's too fat and lazy to stand up. the reddit AMA called him out on all these things. it's archived there and is apparently the shortest AMA in reddit history.

The cumtown segment on Seagal's late films is one of their best bits imo

 

[ignatius]

i wish they'd let ukraine off the leash to fully use their weapon systems for military targets inside russia. make it real for russian armed forces inside russia. this one sided thing is bullshit. but what do i know... 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731

The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons, three U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”

 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, ignatius said:

i wish they'd let ukraine off the leash to fully use their weapon systems for military targets inside russia. make it real for russian armed forces inside russia. this one sided thing is bullshit. but what do i know... 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731

The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons, three U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”

 

They're ostensibly worried about escalation, so I would guess the hopes are that by calling it "for counter-fire purposes" they can say it was a defensive action as opposed to aggressive, which would hopefully limit calls for US troops and legitimate claims of NATO aggression (Putin will still make those claims but they may be seen as less legitimate due to them being solely defensive actions).

This recent policy shift will at least allow Russian soldiers in Russia (I'm guessing just across the border from Kharkiv) will get a small taste of being on the receiving end, and hopefully spread by word of mouth that "hey, this shit sucks".

[decibal cooper]

4 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

They're ostensibly worried about escalation, so I would guess the hopes are that by calling it "for counter-fire purposes" they can say it was a defensive action as opposed to aggressive, which would hopefully limit calls for US troops and legitimate claims of NATO aggression (Putin will still make those claims but they may be seen as less legitimate due to them being solely defensive actions).

This recent policy shift will at least allow Russian soldiers in Russia (I'm guessing just across the border from Kharkiv) will get a small taste of being on the receiving end, and hopefully spread by word of mouth that "hey, this shit sucks".

I agree, the 'counter-fire' element and also that use of the weapons is limited by America to the Kharkiv region solely (as opposed to letting Ukraine fire deep into Russia and target military assets that are further away from Kharkiv) makes it seem like they are worried about escalation. I fear the reality, though, that Russia views even this as an escalation and responds with greater force to match and somewhat overdue it. They are undeniably winning at this point in time and are emboldened presumably in this conflict. Also, even if this gives Russian military forces a taste of their own medicine so to speak, I wonder what effect ultimately this will have on Ukraine's ability to retake land that has already been annexed. Very tough to know for sure what is happening there from here, but it seems like the Ukraine army is having difficulty with its mobilization efforts. I heard one stat that the average Ukraine military member is around 40 years old, and also all of the newest draftees and recruits will be required to have training of some kind before heading to the front lines, not sure how long that training takes. Also am curious about Ukraine public opinion about the war at this point, especially the western portion of the country, if they still support it with the same kind of fervor as when the invasion began.

[Satans Little Helper]

5 hours ago, ignatius said:

i wish they'd let ukraine off the leash to fully use their weapon systems for military targets inside russia. make it real for russian armed forces inside russia. this one sided thing is bullshit. but what do i know... 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/biden-ukraine-weapons-strike-russia-00160731

Agreed. All this “pussyfooting” gives Putin more agency to keep on doing what he is doing. I’m tempted to call putins bluff on the nuclear option. Let Ukraine off the leash, please. This has taken way too long. Economic pressure has been largely ineffective. (Thanks to china, i guess. But china is a given) Time for plan B.

[Wunderbar]

7 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Agreed. All this “pussyfooting” gives Putin more agency to keep on doing what he is doing. I’m tempted to call putins bluff on the nuclear option. Let Ukraine off the leash, please. This has taken way too long. Economic pressure has been largely ineffective. (Thanks to china, i guess. But china is a given) Time for plan B.

it is easy to want to call bluff on a nuclear option of you are not in the blast radius.

Edited May 31 by Wunderbar

[droid]

Wow. An insane amount of warmongering on this thread.

[Satans Little Helper]

19 minutes ago, Wunderbar said:

it is easy to want to call bluff on a nuclear option of you are not in the blast radius.

o, so you know where he'll aim his nukes? i don't! could be anywhere. 

but lets assume for a second he'll nuke the ukraine. let's do a hypothetical questionnaire under the people currently living in the ukraine - within that hypothetical blast radius. would you expect an outcome like "no, please don't gives us long range options because putin might nuke us if we use them"? i think not! they're are waiting on us. quite literally actually.

worse, i could reverse your argument. who are we - people living in EU/US - to stop ukraine from defending themselves the way they seem fit? it's easy for us to say "no, you can only defend yourself with this stuff, but not the longer range stuff" don't you think? we don't live in the current war zone, right? easy for us to armchair strategise without any direct threat. (no direct threat is debatable, obvs, but i'm following your logic here)

 

bonus quote for your pleasure:

Quote

Joe Biden’s delay in sanctioning the use of western weapons against targets in Russia has left the Kremlin’s forces laughing at Ukraine and able to “hunt” its people, Volodymyr Zelenskiy has told the Guardian.

In a wide-ranging interview in Kyiv, the Ukrainian president said that the White House’s equivocation had cost lives and he urged the US president to overcome his perennial worries about possible nuclear “escalation” with Moscow.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/31/volodymyr-zelenskiy-russian-troops-have-been-laughing-at-and-hunting-ukrainians

Edited May 31 by Satans Little Helper

[droid]

23 minutes ago, Wunderbar said:

it is easy to want to call bluff on a nuclear option of you are not in the blast radius.

Unfortunately, even a limited nuclear war could spell armageddon. 250 warheads would kill upwards of 2 billion people. Ive seen estimates as low as 60 detonations being capable of causing a nuclear winter severe enough to decimate agriculture for about 5 years. A 'limited' nuclear war in Europe would almost certainly kill hundreds of millions.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-15/even-limited-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-study-finds

At this point in the conflict it is obvious that there will be no clear victor. The only option is some kind of peace deal. Further escalation is insanity.

[auxien]

6 minutes ago, droid said:

At this point in the conflict it is obvious that there will be no clear victor. The only option is some kind of peace deal. Further escalation is insanity.

you have a point, and i'm not into extending/escalating war/conflict/etc. however, with an aggressor like Putin who has proven he's going to push farther and harder at every possible chance in the future, a 'peace deal' is likely useless. he wouldn't agree to one unless Ukraine ceded control of their occupied territories...and even then he's going to try for more later, be it in Ukraine or elsewhere.

i'm not saying i have a solution, and a peace deal right now could be good (assuming Putin gets buried in the next couple years before they can regroup and re-assert), but i don't know that it's a suggested route.

especially with a leader like Putin in his country, the US and others who are holding lots of power that's second-hand fueling these wars, there needs to be considerable planning for the next leader to be have easy, clear memory that shit like landgrabbing wars is unacceptable.

[decibal cooper]

22 minutes ago, droid said:

Unfortunately, even a limited nuclear war could spell armageddon. 250 warheads would kill upwards of 2 billion people. Ive seen estimates as low as 60 detonations being capable of causing a nuclear winter severe enough to decimate agriculture for about 5 years. A 'limited' nuclear war in Europe would almost certainly kill hundreds of millions.

I remember hearing from a retired US military professional, who was active in the decade after 9/11 at the executive level (and when the US relied on diplomacy more and employed diplomats who had competence and made efforts to understand the history, culture, and perspective of the countries that they were ambassadors to). He said that when the use of nuclear weapons was even suggested, as it is from time to time between Pakistan and India (both nuclear powers), that America would send a delegation of diplomats and military specialists to walk both sides through what exactly escalation looks like - and the possibility that it could easily blow out of proportion and become a worldwide conflagration with most major cities in the most powerful countries being targeted. They would present this information in a comprehensive and academic-like fashion, basically telling the countries that they were playing with fire and emphasizing how dangerous even suggesting nukes is in this respect. The fact that no direct talks whatsoever are taking place between America and Russian's leaders is alarming to me. The last time they spoke directly to one another, whether in person, phone or zoom, was summer of 2021 apparently. Think about the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962. Obviously that was a much more dire and different circumstance than this current conflict, but can anyone imagine what it would have been like if America and Russian leaders at the highest level did not have a direct line of communication, if Kennedy was just like 'y'know what, Khrushchev is a killer and aggressor, he totally not like us, I ain't talking to that guy.'

[Wunderbar]

20 hours ago, droid said:

Unfortunately, even a limited nuclear war could spell armageddon. 250 warheads would kill upwards of 2 billion people. Ive seen estimates as low as 60 detonations being capable of causing a nuclear winter severe enough to decimate agriculture for about 5 years. A 'limited' nuclear war in Europe would almost certainly kill hundreds of millions.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-15/even-limited-nuclear-war-would-kill-billions-study-finds

At this point in the conflict it is obvious that there will be no clear victor. The only option is some kind of peace deal. Further escalation is insanity.

 I feel like europe / russia would get levelled during nuclear conflict but the rest of the world would be pretty safe from direct bomb hits,or am i mistaken here ? Im not sure if living in that aftermath is any better than direct death though.

[Wunderbar]

21 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

but lets assume for a second he'll nuke the ukraine. let's do a hypothetical questionnaire under the people currently living in the ukraine - within that hypothetical blast radius. would you expect an outcome like "no, please don't gives us long range options because putin might nuke us if we use them"? i think not! they're are waiting on us. quite literally actually.

The problem with that decision is that other countries in Europe also face direct threat of nukes getting dropped on them. So why then does Ukraine get to decide for everyone else if we want to enter nuclear conflict?

This might be the exact affect putin wants from his threats, but how do you even start to estimate the truth of those threats with that maniac.

Edited June 1 by Wunderbar

[Satans Little Helper]

Here, a bit of confrontation therapy to get used to the idea. Administered lovingly.

 

 

Edited June 1 by Satans Little Helper

[chenGOD]

23 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

The fact that no direct talks whatsoever are taking place between America and Russian's leaders is alarming to me. The last time they spoke directly to one another, whether in person, phone or zoom, was summer of 2021 apparently

That we know of. And besides the leaders just do the public facing stuff at the end of the day. The civil servants/bureaucrats do the grunt work. 

[decibal cooper]

https://apnews.com/article/russia-navy-warhips-cuba-caribbean-ukraine-12c2be0f94a5ce1fcb8c6fdc0101d450

Quote

Russian warships conducted drills in the Atlantic, the military said Tuesday, as they were heading to visit Cuba, part of Moscow’s efforts to project power amid the tensions with the West over Ukraine.

The Russian Defense Ministry said the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the Kazan nuclear-powered submarine conducted the exercise that was intended to simulate a missile strike on a group of enemy ships.

ships and subs armed with hypersonic missiles that Moscow says travel at nine times the speed of sound, range of 1000km. If that's true I bet they'd be difficult to shoot down or intercept.

[decibal cooper]

Hungarian prime minister Orban met this past week with Zelensky, Putin, and Xi in China, trying to promote diplomatic talks and some kind of peace plan. There is an interview with him here, maybe of interest for anyone still following conflict. The interviewer pushes back on him pretty hard for meeting with Putin and repeatedly presents Orban with the Western and European position, and Zelensky has said that only big power players like US, EU (as a whole), or China would be appropriate peace brokers, not individual countries like Hungary. Doubtful that the US will be making any policy changes (that are deescalating in nature) prior to US elections.

 

[Satans Little Helper]

Some sinister info about how Putin celebrates anniversaries with violence. See the quote, and/ or video. I was surprised, tbh. But frankly, it makes sense.
Apart from that, it’s an interesting discussion between Kaja Kallas, prime minister of Estonia, and Mary Elise Sarotte, author of the history of NATO enlargement “Not One Inch”. ( for the topographically challenged, Estonia is a former part of the USSR, it borders on Russia and is a nato member)

Quote

Tomas to your point um yeah I mean I have very worried because I said I noticed as a historian that Putin celebrates anniversaries with violence so the human rights activist anap kosaya shot dead at close range on October 7th 2006. Putin's birthday.
The release of the hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign October 7th 2016 Putin's birthday.

I could give you a whole list of things that happened on his birthday while I have no evidence I wonder if the fact that the war with Gaza sorry that the Hamas attack happened on October 7th was a result of Russian Iranian contacts. I know the the origins of that conflict are somewhere else but I wonder if he had good enough relations with Iran to say please make October 7th the go day yeah um strange.