Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Jabbyrwock]

7 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

So, are we all going to die of nuclear radiation in a week yet? If we are, I want to splurge and get the $8 ice cream at the store.

[Captain Wiggles]

I know Phish Food when I sees it. Cherry Garcia is the superior Ben & Jerry's Iced Cream.

 

Yeah.... Also if Russia could like not make the world into a real life Fallout game that'd be great. Thx!

 

[Gurgeh]

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

July 5 night time is supposed to be the time from what I read, so that would be any moment now correct?

 

 

 

 

They won't blow up the reactors themselves. Those things are very tough and the amount of explosives (and how to place those explosives to destroy them) couldn't be made to look like artillery fire. It would also lead to an extremely unpredictable and catastrophic event.

 

The allegation is that the cooling pond and some of the roof have been mined. The IAEA inspectors have said that they do not have access to all of the cooling pond or all of the roof, but are trying to get that access. Bear in mind there are only four inspectors for a complex industrial facility that's a mile long and almost as wide, and they can't wander about where they please.

 

[China]

It's not for nothing that people call Russia a mafia state. The accumulated cash and some gold bars were put in cardboard boxes and were said to weigh a couple of tons.

 

Source: Moscow Times

 

Quote

Russian authorities have returned 10 billion rubles ($111.2 million) to exiled Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin which they had seized in police raids during his aborted rebellion last month.

 

Law enforcement in St. Petersburg confiscated the large sum of money — along with “hundreds of thousands” of U.S. dollars and five gold bars — in raids on Prigozhin-linked properties on June 24, according to the Fontanka news website.

 

The searches were carried out as part of a criminal mutiny investigation into the Wagner leader, charges which President Vladimir Putin eventually agreed to drop in exchange for Prigozhin abandoning his revolt and leaving for neighboring Belarus.

 

According to Fontanka, police returned the cash and gold — estimated to weigh “a couple of tons” — to Prigozhin’s driver while Prigozhin himself attended a closed meeting in Moscow on Sunday.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

The U.S. Looks Set to Arm Ukraine With Cluster Bombs. Here's Why That's So Controversial

 

The U.S. is expected to announce that it will supply Ukraine with highly controversial cluster bombs, according to a senior Biden Administration official, the New York Times reported. Ukraine has said that the weapon would help its long-awaited counteroffensive, now in its second month, which has been making slow progress.

 

CBS News reported on Wednesday that U.S. officials said a decision could come as early as this week.

 

President Biden had long resisted calls to provide cluster munitions—which are currently sitting in U.S. stockpiles and on the verge of expiring—because of how controversial the weapons are globally. The small bomblets are banned in more than 120 countries because they pollute the battlefield and kill civilians years after a conflict subsides.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Former U.S. officials have held secret Ukraine talks with prominent Russians

 

A group of former senior U.S. national security officials have held secret talks with prominent Russians believed to be close to the Kremlin — and, in at least one case, with the country’s top diplomat — with the aim of laying the groundwork for potential negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, half a dozen people briefed on the discussions told NBC News. 

 

In a high-level example of the back-channel diplomacy taking place behind the scenes, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with members of the group for several hours in April in New York, four former officials and two current officials told NBC News. 

 

On the agenda of the April meeting were some of the thorniest issues in the war in Ukraine, like the fate of Russian-held territory that Ukraine may never be able to liberate, and the search for an elusive diplomatic off-ramp that could be tolerable to both sides. 

 

Sitting down with Lavrov were Richard Haass, a former diplomat and the outgoing president of the Council on Foreign Relations, current and former officials said. The group was joined by Europe expert Charles Kupchan and Russia expert Thomas Graham, both former White House and State Department officials who are Council on Foreign Relations fellows. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[CousinsCowgirl84]

So how does es feel about cluster bombs?

[FootballZombie]

42 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

So how does es feel about cluster bombs?

 

The landscape has changed.

 

The fear early on was that if you give cluster munitions, Ukraine's fields would be littered with mines well after the conflict is even over.

Now that we have been in the war for a good minute.... Russia has littered Ukraine's fields and roads with mines.

 

Ukraine is already and will have to continue to invest in explosive plowing and removal as it is. The disdain for giving cluster munitions is not the same now as it was at the start of the war.

 

 

That's not to say its a "green light" or anything, there are a lot of factors at play, but similarly to how we prioritized sending Ukraine different types of armaments and defensive measures at different points in the war, cluster munitions will grow more or less feasible as the battle ebbs and flows.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Make it rain, ****es.

[PokerPacker]

My feeling is: **** Russia.  Give Ukraine all the weapons.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Does everyone still think Ukraine will take back its eastern territories and Crimea? Perhaps a best option involves Russia keeping the land it annexed and the remainder of Ukraine joining NATO?

I know it isn’t ideal, but we wouldn’t have to worry so much about Russia regrouping for further attacks, unless you think they might decide to attack Nato?

[PokerPacker]

I accept no scenario in which Russia gets a goddamned inch of Ukraine.  No more ****ing appeasement.  Did we learn nothing dealing with the NAZIs?

[Larry]

I'm certainly not confident of Ukraine taking their territory back. 
 

I said some time ago that there's a huge difference between being able to slow an advancing army, make them pay a lot, and not give in. And being ably to effectively attack that same army, when they've had months to dig in. 
 

I'd love for the Ukrainians to prove me wrong, again, though. 

[Gurgeh]

6 hours ago, Larry said:

I'm certainly not confident of Ukraine taking their territory back. 
 

I said some time ago that there's a huge difference between being able to slow an advancing army, make them pay a lot, and not give in. And being ably to effectively attack that same army, when they've had months to dig in. 
 

I'd love for the Ukrainians to prove me wrong, again, though. 

 

With all the right equipment the Ukrainians could do it, but the chances of them getting what they need are slim:

- they asked for 300 tanks, and were pledged around 100, of which around 60-70 have actually been delivered.

- they asked for long range weaponry to match the Russians. Only the Brits have given them anything, and that's air launched which limits how often it can be used as the Ukraine air force can be struck anywhere in Ukraine by Russian AA missiles fired from outside Ukraine.

- they asked for F16s to defend their airspace, and might get some maybe by the end of the year, well after the summer offensive will be over

 

[Gurgeh]

In happier news:

 

 

Elsewhere, the Ukrainians have advanced far enough to be able to safely recover the 7 Leopard tanks they lost in the early days of the offensive. Two were apparently destroyed and five damaged when they were caught by artillery fire while making their way through a minefield. The hope is the five can be repaired and returned to action.

 

 

[FootballZombie]

The other factor that makes me comfy sending over cluster munitions is the track record of the decision makers. The top brass has been so crazy effective at predicting what would be most needed to combat the future tide of war, I don't even question their judgement as to what is needed and when.

 

You can't just send everything. Not only will you over saturate the supply lines, you'll be providing stuff that is either unusable due to lack of training, or not optimal for the given situation.

 

Early on, it was all about simplicity, ease of use and rapid response. We shipped drones and various RPGs... and they changed the battlefield. 

 

While those did serious damage, they got crews up to speed on the next game-changer, HIMARS.

While those brew away Russian infrastructure, Ukraine was prepped to roll out new heavy armor, and Patriot defenses. Now their shooting down Kinzals.

 

The next "big-thing" will likely be the F-16s

 

 

If these guys tell me that now is the time to ship cluster munitions, rail-guns or space shuttles w/ miniguns attatched... They kinda earned blind faith from me.

 

 

Tomorrow they could announce that they are sending in "The Asset" and I would not bat an eye in terms of whether the time is now.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by FootballZombie

[The 12th Commandment]

Himars, cluster munitions and all the other deadly stuff we've been sending to Ukraine are certainly effective weapons of war but I think the biggest impact they have is scaring the bejeesus out of Rusky grunts.  I'd be shaking in my boots if I knew that stuff was going to be aimed at me.

[Bang]

"illegal weapons of war" is such a stupid phrase anyway.

It's wholesale murder. Use anything to end it as quickly as possible. 

 

~Bang

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Pass the biological weapons to @Bang

Anything

[Bang]

I know, I know. It's more a philosophical argument. 
"Rules" of war always seemed ridiculous to me. It's within the rules to drop incendiaries on civilians, for example. 
 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

20 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

So how does es feel about cluster bombs?

 

Was watching Washington Week recording today and they broken it down in a way I better get the conflicting.

 

Ours have less dud rate, 3%, then Russia's, somewhere around 40%, but a kid picking jus one up and it blowing on them is why over 100 countries have banned them. Including some of our allies.

 

Ukraine has promised to only use on their territory, no urban areas, and track usage as part of leading cleanup efforts.

 

But this is in response to not being able to keep up with Ukraine's usage of regular artillery.  This is why I wish we'd call out other members of NATO that we did this to help keep Ukraine in the game best we could, if they didn't want us to do this, other NATO members needed to give more conventional shells to make up the difference.

 

This is about as close to a stalemate as its ever been, advantage Russia for not getting nearly the help to keep it that way on their end, Ukraine is the one that's begging for help to jus keep it a stalemate on their end.

 

I'm not buying they get Crimea back now...and with no timeline to get NATO membership because Ukraine is actively at war, ceasefire should be on the table to at least get official NATO membership. 

 

They've made their point in willing to fight for their freedom, but other NATO members are already starting to feel the bite of trying to keep up with supplying them with weapons we need and I never thought we'd start hinting at that reality as well. 

15 minutes ago, Bang said:

I know, I know. It's more a philosophical argument. 
"Rules" of war always seemed ridiculous to me. It's within the rules to drop incendiaries on civilians, for example. 
 

~Bang

 

 

Theres truth to this, but for me that means we need more rules.

 

In context folks desperate enough will break them anyway.

 

We should not pretend push come to shove Ukraine won't bend or break rules for their own survival if it comes to that, US knows this, UK knows this, huge reason this also is controversial giving clusters...this is war, let's not forget that...

Edited July 8, 2023 by Renegade7

[Bang]

Rules. War is a situation where 'reasonable people' have decided that the best answer to ___ problem is to kill as many people who disagree as possible. Take their land, maybe, steal their resources, maybe.
The entire thing is against every criminal statute in the entire world, including the so called 'sacred books'. 

 

It's absurd that there are rules. Even with the laws of unintended consequence. Making a decision not to use a weapon because of this reason is only common sense. All of war is unintended consequence. the whole 'what if' is on display. what if we kill the person who was destined to cure cancer, etc. etc.

There is no humane way to make war. None, even with "rules". 

 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, Bang said:

Rules. War is a situation where 'reasonable people' have decided that the best answer to ___ problem is to kill as many people who disagree as possible. Take their land, maybe, steal their resources, maybe.
The entire thing is against every criminal statute in the entire world, including the so called 'sacred books'. 

 

It's absurd that there are rules. Even with the laws of unintended consequence. Making a decision not to use a weapon because of this reason is only common sense. All of war is unintended consequence. the whole 'what if' is on display. what if we kill the person who was destined to cure cancer, etc. etc.

There is no humane way to make war. None, even with "rules". 

 

~Bang

 

It's not realistic to debate against your position here, but that's what we are as humans.

 

That's how we choose to resolve some of our problems, right or wrong.

 

Who am I to say we shouldn't have war when I live in a country that got its independence via one?

 

Rules of War are lipstick on the pig. But better them nothing given we gonna continue doing this war thing for the foreseeable future.

 

Apes with machine guns and backwards baseball caps is I believe how Carlin put it...

[PokerPacker]

10 minutes ago, Bang said:

Rules. War is a situation where 'reasonable people' have decided that the best answer to ___ problem is to kill as many people who disagree as possible. Take their land, maybe, steal their resources, maybe.
The entire thing is against every criminal statute in the entire world, including the so called 'sacred books'. 

 

It's absurd that there are rules. Even with the laws of unintended consequence. Making a decision not to use a weapon because of this reason is only common sense. All of war is unintended consequence. the whole 'what if' is on display. what if we kill the person who was destined to cure cancer, etc. etc.

There is no humane way to make war. None, even with "rules". 

 

~Bang

 

[Jabbyrwock]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

but other NATO members are already starting to feel the bite of trying to keep up with supplying them with weapons we need and I never thought we'd start hinting at that reality as well. 

 

Which is why the winner of this war is China.  Russia is now, basically, their economic **** and every shell killing a Russian in Ukraine is one less shell available to deter actions China might want to take in their neck of the woods.