OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Targan]

For the Ukrainians to manage to sink a Russian cruiser, that's quite an achievement. Fair to say that would be the most expensive individual piece of hardware the Russians have lost as a result of Putin's current folly

[kato13]

For the Ukrainians to manage to sink a Russian cruiser, that's quite an achievement. Fair to say that would be the most expensive individual piece of hardware the Russians have lost as a result of Putin's current folly

I work with marketing teams all the time and the timing of the announcement of this stamp and the sinking, is more than you can ask for. I hope they sell 10s of millions of those stamps.







Edit the website is overloaded and they would not be available yet but giving them a link. http://pm.ukrposhta.ua/nishop.php (Ukrainian postal service)

edit 2 removed from sinking. Russia admitted it.

[Bestbrian]

I work with marketing teams all the time and the timing of the announcement of this stamp and the sinking is more than you can ask for. I hope they sell 10s of millions of those stamps.

That's gold, Jerry! GOLD!

[Raellus]

Gavin Rides Again!

Here's what's in the latest US military aid package for Ukraine:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-exactly-whats-in-the-800-million-u-s-military-aid-package-to-ukraine

-

[pmulcahy11b]

It's been confirmed on the major news channels (even Fox) -- The Moskva has sunk!

Most of crew had gotten off before it sunk.

Now, which do you believe:
1) A spontaneous fire broke out aboard her
2) The Ukrainians fired two antiship missiles at her
3) Two missiles hit her, which are what caused the fire in the first place.

[Raellus]

Slava Ukraini!

The irony.

I think 2 & 3 most likely.

This brief AP article provides a little history about the Moskva.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-warship-moskva-e71316da36c77396ebd50470e2519982

I always thought the Slava class cruisers were the most attractive warships in the Soviet navy. Their cruise missile tubes were intimidating.

-

[shrike6]

It's been confirmed on the major news channels (even Fox) -- The Moskva has sunk!

Most of crew had gotten off before it sunk.

Now, which do you believe:
1) A spontaneous fire broke out aboard her
2) The Ukrainians fired two antiship missiles at her
3) Two missiles hit her, which are what caused the fire in the first place.

I'd like to think 2 and 3 happened but the experts on the news tend to think 1. We'll see which it is.

[kcdusk]

From Russias point of view, neither option is good.
1. Yes, our crew is so incompetent we started a fire on board that was so bad, we sunk; or
2. Yes, Ukraine sunk her with an anti-ship missile.

I don't know which scenario is more damaging to admit too.

[kato13]

Russian TV seems to be blaming Kyiv for the sinking of the Moskva and are calling it a Casus Belli for expanding attacks on Kyiv and railways.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1514766062771875851

The story of an accidental explosion appears to have unraveled.

[Targan]

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

[Bestbrian]

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

Russia utilizing NBC weapons would enrage the world, make things very uncomfortable for the Chinese, and pretty much ensure some degree of direct NATO involvement; I like to think they're not that stupid and/or desperate. Additionally, Russian attacks on military aid to Ukraine, inside the borders of third countries, would likely be considered a breach of Article 5, so, despite Russian diplomatic bluster, I consider it highly unlikely. Putin is looking to move the goalposts and to get some positive momentum so that he can declare victory and go home, and widening the war to include first rank military powers isn't going to help him achieve that. I expect them to concentrate every boot, rifle, and track on just hammering away until they can claim they "liberated" the Donbas.

[Raellus]

One has to to wonder what lessons Putin drew from NATO's lukewarm response to Assad ignoring a declared "red line" and continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people in Syria. What did NATO do A: Lobbed a dozen or so Tomahawks at an airbase or two. Is Putin going to worry too much about a strong NATO response if he authorizes the use of chemical weapons on Ukrainian trench lines in the Donbass

-

[kcdusk]

I've given up trying to agree on what line to cross is too far. There have been 3, 4 or 6 or 7 times in this war i've thought, Whooa - too far.

Yet no response from NATO. Because they didn't want to provoke Russia. Which left me thinking there is no line that's too far.

It made me think back to high school and no one wanted to stand up to the yard bully. He's walking around hitting people but no one wanted to stand up to him, least they be hit. Do you know what happened He kept walking around hitting people! By not doing anything, the worst happened any way!

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they Poland Spain!

[Raellus]

ROK T-80Us

South Korea probably wants to steer well clear of the Ukraine War, but its upgraded T-80Us (sent to the ROK by Russia to pay off Soviet-era debts) would be a welcome addition to Ukraine's MBT force. It's not like the ROK really needs them. Their locally built K1 (mini Abrams) and K2 Black Panthers are highly capable, and they still have quite a few upgraded M48s in reserve.

-

[Drgonzo2011]

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they Poland Spain!

What would you suggest So far, NATO has figured out a way to keep Ukraine afloat and avoid a direct fight with the Russians, while killing a lot of their men, destroying a lot of their hardware and demonstrating that the Russian military is vastly overrated. Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, giving the alliance a nice boost and the Germans seem ready to expand the Bundeswher. As an added bonus, China must be seriously questioning their alliance with Russia, feeling much like the Germans did vis-a-vis Italy during World War Two (a nation with a military that looked good on paper, but performed poorly and required constant support). While I won't go so far as to say that the Western policies have been a complete success - the war isn't over yet and the moves in the weeks leading up to the conflict failed to deter the Russians - they have been both measured and effective.

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.