Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[tinker]

Is the bombardment of the city's from ground based weapons an indication that Russia's air force cannot operate over the Ukraine without suffering heavy losses?

hat happens when the Russian arm forces goes into these cities and discovers the devastation they have caused, the news will surely get back to the Russian public.

Maybe if we exported vast amounts of vodka into the Ukraine it would slow the Russians down even more. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by tinker

[Panto_Villan]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's not what I've said. What I am trying to get across is that (for example) if it is clear to Putin (at any time) that if he takes a course of action, NATO will (with its superior forces) oppose this, then he won't take that course of action. I'm not saying NATO should involve itself right now, it's too late. I'm suggesting that earlier (pre-war) steps might have stopped it (though these would have been outside article 5 etc.) and that if (for example) NATO were to make very clear that "so much as a stray bullet lands on NATO soil... then..." this will incentivise Putin not to allow that to happen.

As it is, we are where we are, and we're just randoms talking on a football message board. It's just different perspectives. I don't know what's right or wrong in terms of hypotheticals. Just a view.

Fair enough. I certainly see the logic, I just think the risks are too high for me to think it's worth trying. I kinda think that if the major players in NATO aren't actually willing to start a shooting war with Russia it'll be quite obvious due to public squabbling or a domestic backlash from the public, which is why I say that if you're going to start issuing threats I personally think you have to be willing to stand behind them.

Paradoxically if you are then I think Putin would be very likely to back down. If not, then I think there's a chance he'd call the bluff and it would backfire massively.

There ends my expert opinion as a random on a football board

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Paradoxically if you are, then I think Putin would be very likely to back down. If not, then I think there's a chance he'd call the bluff and it would backfire massively.

Exactly. I agree completely.

[Ingram85]

Would Putin back down and lose face at home after all this or would he just tantrum nuke Ukraine out of existence if he can’t win? 

[il_serpente]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

Is it possible that the American bar is located in the Russian River valley in California? Second largest wine producing valley in California after Napa iirc But yes, people can be dicks, they'll do that with or without the media firing them up but yes the media make it worse

That isn't what Facebook said either. Facebook iirc said they were going to allow posts wanting invading Russian Forces to die given the circumstances but not death to Russians in general. They made this decision because Ukrainians were being handed bans for expressing opinions about the invading forces (understandable in the circumstances) which then was hindering them getting access to other potentially lifesaving information.

 

Russian River Brewing Co. to produce special beer for Ukraine relief aid effort (pressdemocrat.com)

Quote

Russian River Brewing Co. of Windsor is lending its support to Ukrainians by brewing a limited beer whose sales will go to help citizens of the war-torn country.

Russian River on Thursday will brew a hoppy strong golden ale based on a recipe from the Pravda Brewery in Lviv, Ukraine, which started the campaign last week to raise funds to aid its fellow citizens after Russia launched its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24.

Couldn't find anything about them getting threats after a quick search.  I know there are a lot of idiots in the US and California, but I don't think even the thickest would confuse the name with support for Russia.  This is a very well known brewing company in the states, particularly in the West.   Their annual limited release of the beer Pliney the Younger is a major event, with people lining up and even sleeping overnight IIRC, limits to how much you can buy.  It's very hard to get any. 

Quote

The Sonoma County Economic Development Board studies the impact of the February release of Pliny the Younger every year.

In 2018, the study determined the Younger release brought an economic impact of $3.36 million to Sonoma County from visitors who traveled to the county specifically for the release. According to the report, people came from 17 countries and 40 states.^[11]

In 2019, the study found the Younger release brought $4.16 million in economic impact, helped by the addition of a second location: the original bar in Santa Rosa and the new larger brewing facility in Windsor. Visitors came from 14 countries and 42 states, according to the report.^[12]

In 2020, the number rose to $5.1 million.^[13] More than 23,000 visitors came from 14 countries and 47 states.^[10]

Pliney the Elder is available year-round and is an excellent double IPA.

[il_serpente]

5 hours ago, sidcow said:

Apparently Elon Musk has challenged Putin to a one on one one fight for the Future of Ukraine. 

Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier he raises the bar again. 

We can only hope:

 

[Sam-AVFC]

When exactly is it in your mid/late teens that challenging someone 20 years older and several inches shorter than you to a physical fight goes from brave to pathetic?

[OutByEaster?]

Is the Homes for Ukraine package the privatisation of compassion?

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That's not what I've said. What I am trying to get across is that (for example) if it is clear to Putin (at any time) that if he takes a course of action, NATO will (with its superior forces) oppose this, then he won't take that course of action. I'm not saying NATO should involve itself right now, it's too late. I'm suggesting that earlier (pre-war) steps might have stopped it (though these would have been outside article 5 etc.) and that if (for example) NATO were to make very clear that "so much as a stray bullet lands on NATO soil... then..." this will incentivise Putin not to allow that to happen.

As it is, we are where we are, and we're just randoms talking on a football message board. It's just different perspectives. I don't know what's right or wrong in terms of hypotheticals. Just a view.

That's a bluff that is very open to being called. You say he would have backed down; what if he hadn't?

[KentVillan]

14 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's a bluff that is very open to being called. You say he would have backed down; what if he hadn't?

This is the whole problem with all this shoulda woulda coulda stuff.

As with a game of poker, you can play optimally *with a stronger hand* and still get blown up by an opponent who misplays their weaker hand.

All sides have imperfect information and there’s always scope for someone else to play suboptimally. It’s very, very hard to work out what to do.

And nuclear weapons introduce “risk of ruin” which just plays havoc with probability calculations.

Is it better to take:

Option A

80% chance of victory

10% chance of limited defeat

10% chance of nuclear war

or

Option B

50% chance of victory

45% chance of limited defeat

5% chance of nuclear war

These are very difficult calculations, and I don’t envy the guys working overtime trying to map a way through this.

Edited March 15, 2022 by KentVillan

[choffer]

47 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is the Homes for Ukraine package the privatisation of compassion?

 

The answer to this will come from the same school of thought as the reply to the question “what do you say about the vast increase in food bank use across the country, Mr Rees-Mogg?”.

[bickster]

Brave woman

 

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's a bluff that is very open to being called. You say he would have backed down; what if he hadn't?

Firstly, I didn’t say that, I said “might have”. I only emphasise that because I’m more than aware I know Jack about this stuff, I wouldn’t be that assertive as I don’t know.

But anyway, yeah. We have to mean it, so it’s not a bluff. I think it’s fair to say that the West, the UK, the EU, have for the past decade been eminently “weak” in responding to Russian atrocities. Whether poisonings, murders, airline shooting down, annexation and invasion, electoral interference, buying politicians, troll farms and all the myriad rest of it. All that type of approach has led to is Putin perceiving “us” as decaying and weak, and thus he takes advantage.

unfortunately, at some point that failed approach has to change. This war is the wake up call. And it’s apparently been heeded, which is a good thing, but so sad what caused it.

NATO has said, clearly, “we have no intention of attacking Russia, we are a defensive organisation who will collectively defend any of us who is attacked”. Now they have to absolutely, resolutely demonstrate the willingness and ability to follow that principle. If they don’t, Ukraine won’t be the end of this. There is no alternative.

[bickster]

Intersting take on the Russian use of Nazi by a Ukrainian academic (short thread)

 

 

[Delphinho123]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

Firstly, I didn’t say that, I said “might have”. I only emphasise that because I’m more than aware I know Jack about this stuff, I wouldn’t be that assertive as I don’t know.

But anyway, yeah. We have to mean it, so it’s not a bluff. I think it’s fair to say that the West, the UK, the EU, have for the past decade been eminently “weak” in responding to Russian atrocities. Whether poisonings, murders, airline shooting down, annexation and invasion, electoral interference, buying politicians, troll farms and all the myriad rest of it. All that type of approach has led to is Putin perceiving “us” as decaying and weak, and thus he takes advantage.

unfortunately, at some point that failed approach has to change. This war is the wake up call. And it’s apparently been heeded, which is a good thing, but so sad what caused it.

NATO has said, clearly, “we have no intention of attacking Russia, we are a defensive organisation who will collectively defend any of us who is attacked”. Now they have to absolutely, resolutely demonstrate the willingness and ability to follow that principle. If they don’t, Ukraine won’t be the end of this. There is no alternative.

That’s the scary part. 

[Panto_Villan]

54 minutes ago, blandy said:

Firstly, I didn’t say that, I said “might have”. I only emphasise that because I’m more than aware I know Jack about this stuff, I wouldn’t be that assertive as I don’t know.

But anyway, yeah. We have to mean it, so it’s not a bluff. I think it’s fair to say that the West, the UK, the EU, have for the past decade been eminently “weak” in responding to Russian atrocities. Whether poisonings, murders, airline shooting down, annexation and invasion, electoral interference, buying politicians, troll farms and all the myriad rest of it. All that type of approach has led to is Putin perceiving “us” as decaying and weak, and thus he takes advantage.

unfortunately, at some point that failed approach has to change. This war is the wake up call. And it’s apparently been heeded, which is a good thing, but so sad what caused it.

NATO has said, clearly, “we have no intention of attacking Russia, we are a defensive organisation who will collectively defend any of us who is attacked”. Now they have to absolutely, resolutely demonstrate the willingness and ability to follow that principle. If they don’t, Ukraine won’t be the end of this. There is no alternative.

I guess the more optimistic take on the same set of facts would be that rich democracies that value the lives and wellbeing of their citizens are always going to struggle with this problem to some degree because they're not willing to sacrifice the lives of their soldiers as easily as poorer authoritarian regimes are. But this weakness (and I'm not sure it's necessarily that bad a thing overall) hides the fact that democracies are stronger than they look; once you push them too far public opinion changes and solidifies behind firm action very quickly.

The endless divisions of a democracy also mean they rarely fall foul of what appears to have happened to Putin - he's been in power too long and eliminated all his opponents so he's surrounded by yes men who tell him what he wants to hear. When you read articles about how Putin has seen off five US presidents (or whatever) that's as much as weakness as it is a strength given autocrats tend to hang on well beyond their sell-by date, much to the detriment of their country.

It'll be really interesting to see what happens in terms of geopolitics in the next 20-30 years as military forces becomes increasing robotic. If the rich decadent west doesn't actually have to risk the lives of their soldiers to wage war on their enemies, the patterns might change significantly (which we've already seen with Predator drones and the like). It'll also probably cancel out the massive population many developing nations have; what will matter will just be the size and sophistication of the industrial base in each country.

[maqroll]

Fascinating thread-

 

[foreveryoung]

Just watched panorama on Abramovic, that guy has some serious paper. Apart from the obvious Yachts x 2, a 150 million pound house in London, amongst others, the guy does not even have a cheap private 50 million quid Lear jet, he has his own Boeing dreamliner kitted out. Not sure how true it is, but the moral of the story was they reckon he looks after Putins finance interests. Insane someone should have that amount of money, I'm guessing he is probably unofficially the richest person in the world, personal wealth, all corrupt ofcourse. An they say crime doesn't pay!

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Just watched panorama on Abramovic, that guy has some serious paper. Apart from the obvious Yachts x 2, a 150 million pound house in London, amongst others, the guy does not even have a cheap private 50 million quid Lear jet, he has his own Boeing dreamliner kitted out. Not sure how true it is, but the moral of the story was they reckon he looks after Putins finance interests. Insane someone should have that amount of money, I'm guessing he is probably unofficially the richest person in the world, personal wealth, all corrupt ofcourse. An they say crime doesn't pay!

But is he happy?

Probably not as happy as he has been as it stands.

[icouldtelltheworld]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

Fascinating thread-

 

Just posting to second this - some absolutely fascinating threads on that account, really enlightening stuff and well worth following