War in Ukraine

[DarkAxel]

Sums up the feelings of a lot of my friends. Can't say as I blame them, even though I know anything more risks escalating things.


Anywho, Russia is now claiming it can nationalize assets of companies that have left Russia. Anybody for a McPutin burger?

[Anianna]

Anywho, Russia is now claiming it can nationalize assets of companies that have left Russia. Anybody for a McPutin burger?

The link has some funky formatting and won't click through, so I'm just including it on its own:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/business/russia-nationalization-western-companies/index.html

[mzmc]

Struggling to decide whether this should go here or in Firearms Chat.  Ian McCollum (aka Gun Jesus) has some very interesting thoughts on a lesson learned from the Ukraine conflict.  Specifically the value of an armed citizenry, trained in rifle marksmanship, as a deterrent to invasion from a more powerful neighbor.  Ian used Finland as an example.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWdn6_ayqD8

For what it's worth, applications for firearms licenses have skyrocketed in Germany in the last 2 weeks.

One of the more active people in pressuring the government to relax regulations is a person this forum should know well: One Mr. Jörg Sprave.

[sheddi]

Catching up with this thread after two weeks has been interesting.

Turns out that Ukraine is still there and things haven't gone Russia's way after all.

Some interesting links for you (these are mostly people I follow on Twitter):

Oryx Spioenkop has been doing a great job keeping track of equipment losses on both sides. These are based on verifiable photographic evidence so will be low counts.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
The current count is 1136 Russian losses (of which 476 were captured intact by Ukraine) vs. 318 Ukrainian losses. Yes, on that count Ukraine now has more equipment than they started with.

Trent Telenko has offered some analysis of Russian logistics, maintenance practices and dubious tire choices.

And did you read about Ukraine managing to hit (and possibly sink) the modern Russian corvette Vasily Bykov with unguided BM-21 Grad rockets?
https://www.ibtimes.sg/chilling-moment-ukrainian-rockets-destroy-russian-warship-navy-ship-that-shelled-snake-island-63258

I'll post more when I get a chance.

[majorhavoc]

Polish President Andrzej Duda warns Russian use of weapons of mass destruction could compel NATO to rethink its decision to refrain from military intervention in the conflict.

President Duda doesn't speak for all of NATO of course.  But I've been on the lookout for language like this to start coming from Western leaders.  It can be seen both as a message to Russia but also the initial stage in establishing consensus of what would trigger wider NATO engagement.  If this conflict broadens into a wider war, I imagine this is how it's going to happen. 

https://www.deccanherald.com/international/world-news-politics/warsaw-warns-chemical-weapons-game-changing-in-ukraine-war-1090901.html
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/13/world/ukraine-russia-war
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60717902

[Anianna]

This may be too political for discussion, but the U.S. has been sending weapons and money to Ukraine, but the decision was made not to help Poland send their migs over because that would be "WWIII".  Why is that the line?  Why are anti-tank weapons okay to send, but not fighter jets?  Can somebody explain this to me?

[majorhavoc]

This may be too political for discussion, but the U.S. has been sending weapons and money to Ukraine, but the decision was made not to help Poland send their migs over because that would be "WWIII".  Why is that the line?  Why are anti-tank weapons okay to send, but not fighter jets?  Can somebody explain this to me?

The popular but flimsy distinction is that portable anti-tank and anti-missle weapons are strictly defensive in nature.  Whereas fighter aircraft can fulfill certain offensive roles.  But the distinction in Ukraine is meanless.  That country is fighting for its life; its right to exist.  Any weapons Ukraine might employ - aircraft, artillery, armored vehicles - they're all defensive at this point.     

But I've written my congressional rep and both of my senators pushing this exact point; facilitating the delivery of a couple dozen Soviet era fighter jets is hardly more provoactive that the latest shipment of Javelin, Stinger and NLAWs coming directly from NATO inventories.  On one level at least, WWIII has already started.  Because 21st century warfare isn't restricted to direct physical involvement anymore.  It's also fought with social media, cyber attacks and material support.  Western leaders just haven't caught up with that reality yet. 

And I continue to see historical parallels on top of that.  Russia declaring western supply convoys "legitimate targets" and this morning's strike on a western Ukrainian base used as a staging area for western arms shipments?  This the the U-boat menace all over again.  Where US merchant ships were sinking and burning right off the US eastern seaboard more than a year before the US's "official" entry into WWII.

[EBuff75]

I believe part of the concern was having the jets fly to a NATO airbase and from there to Ukraine.  Doing the transfer that way (which is how they had originally proposed handling the transfer) would give the impression that NATO was directly involved, since it used their airbase.  My reaction to that would be, well, just do the transfer at a regular airport then.  Or, since the MiG-29 is supposed to be rough-field capable, you could even use some little grass field FBO and do the transfer there (that way there's not really any strategic value to the transfer location).

Many countries sell various arms all over the world, so things like anti-tank and anti-air transfers can be looked at as business-as-usual, particularly for man-portable, easy to use weapons.  There are fewer companies making military aircraft, many fewer of the planes themselves, and much higher costs/training/support involved, so it makes them more significant. 

It's a really vague sort of thing, made worse by not having any idea how Putin might react to actions taken by other countries.  They're trying to avoid looking like NATO is supporting Ukraine in one area, while supporting Ukraine in other areas. 

Would transferring tanks be too much?  Maybe some artillery?  Still too far?  What about trucks?  Humvees?  Heavy machine guns?  Baseball bats wrapped with barbed wire?  Pointy sticks?  Rocks?  Nerf darts?... 

[flybynight]

This may be too political for discussion, but the U.S. has been sending weapons and money to Ukraine, but the decision was made not to help Poland send their migs over because that would be "WWIII".  Why is that the line?  Why are anti-tank weapons okay to send, but not fighter jets?  Can somebody explain this to me?

The popular but flimsy distinction is that portable anti-tank and anti-missle weapons are strictly defensive in nature.  Whereas fighter aircraft can fulfill certain offensive roles.  But the distinction in Ukraine is meanless.  That country is fighting for its life; its right to exist.  Any weapons Ukraine might employ - aircraft, artillery, armored vehicles - they're all defensive at this point.     

But I've written my congressional rep and both of my senators pushing this exact point; facilitating the delivery of a couple dozen Soviet era fighter jets is hardly more provoactive that the latest shipment of Javelin, Stinger and NLAWs coming directly from NATO inventories.  On one level at least, WWIII has already started.  Because 21st century warfare isn't restricted to direct physical involvement anymore.  It's also fought with social media, cyber attacks and material support.  Western leaders just haven't caught up with that reality yet. 

And I continue to see historical parallels on top of that.  Russia declaring western supply convoys "legitimate targets" and this morning's strike on a western Ukrainian base used as a staging area for western arms shipments?  This the the U-boat menace all over again.  Where US merchant ships were sinking and burning right off the US eastern seaboard more than a year before the US's "official" entry into WWII.

John Titor was right

[NT2C]

A new stamp honors the Ukrainian soldiers who profanely told off a Russian warship

[Lambykins]

A new stamp honors the Ukrainian soldiers who profanely told off a Russian warship

I want that stamp!

[majorhavoc]

A new stamp honors the Ukrainian soldiers who profanely told off a Russian warship

It's getting harder and harder for me to understand how anyone outside of Russia and maybe Belarus can not be seriously rooting for these people.

There's a real fundraising opportunity here because I bet there's millions worldwide who would give their left nut for an authentic piece of Ukrainian mail sent with that stamp. Maybe a letter writing campaign to Ukrainian soldiers accompanied with a minimum contribution of $10 towards body armor or something. Who could object to body armor? And in return you get a reply from a Ukrainian with that stamp. I've already given to United Help Ukraine (and got my employer to do a 1 to 1 match!). But I'd sure as hell pony up another $10 to get a postcard with that stamp.

[Blast]

John Titor was right

Yep   
-Blast

[Mr. E. Monkey]

A new stamp honors the Ukrainian soldiers who profanely told off a Russian warship

It's getting harder and harder for me to understand how anyone outside of Russia and maybe Belarus can not be seriously rooting for these people.

There's a real fundraising opportunity here because I bet there's millions worldwide who would give their left nut for an authentic piece of Ukrainian mail sent with that stamp. Maybe a letter writing campaign to Ukrainian soldiers accompanied with a minimum contribution of $10 towards body armor or something. Who could object to body armor? And in return you get a reply from a Ukrainian with that stamp. I've already given to United Help Ukraine (and got my employer to do a 1 to 1 match!). But I'd sure as hell pony up another $10 to get a postcard with that stamp.

Heck yeah.  Body armor, medical supplies, lots they could do with a campaign like that.

[12_Gauge_Chimp]

A new stamp honors the Ukrainian soldiers who profanely told off a Russian warship

It's getting harder and harder for me to understand how anyone outside of Russia and maybe Belarus can not be seriously rooting for these people.

There's a real fundraising opportunity here because I bet there's millions worldwide who would give their left nut for an authentic piece of Ukrainian mail sent with that stamp. Maybe a letter writing campaign to Ukrainian soldiers accompanied with a minimum contribution of $10 towards body armor or something. Who could object to body armor? And in return you get a reply from a Ukrainian with that stamp. I've already given to United Help Ukraine (and got my employer to do a 1 to 1 match!). But I'd sure as hell pony up another $10 to get a postcard with that stamp.

Heck yeah.  Body armor, medical supplies, lots they could do with a campaign like that.

If I was a smarter man, I'd set something like that up.

Also, I don't know anyone in Ukraine, so I'm screwed on that end as well.

[DarkAxel]

I little better balanced vid from Task & Purpose

https://youtu.be/Igq2fqa7RY4

In other news, looks like some folks get to recycle their free Brittney signs from last year:

[Anianna]

Seriously, I hate how skewed our reporting is.  Obviously the Russians are making progress, but we only get a mention of "Russia now has control over x" which feels kind of startling given the reports made it sound like they weren't able to progress at all.  Ukraine is putting up a really good fight, but they aren't winning and while it's really important to show the atrocities, there's more to the Russian side than attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure.  It's so frustrating not to get the whole picture.  Is our shoddy, biased journalism really all that much better than Russian propaganda? 

[Raptor]

  It's so frustrating not to get the whole picture.  Is our shoddy, biased journalism really all that much better than Russian propaganda?

No our "journalism" is pathetic garbage. Real coverage requires war correspondents and a news outlets that publishes the reports of news when the facts and may or may not fit their bias.

That said reporting on wars is always incomplete and inaccurate; even 77 years later we are still learning new facts about ww-2. 

An aside...My father was in WW-2 in Europe. So he was on the ground and right there. After the war he read everything he could on the war because even when he right there, maybe 5 miles away (like at the relief of Bastogne) he said he had no a clue what was happening outside of his eyesight. 
"Nobody tole em nuffin."   


For what it is worth the longer the Russians take, the more likely it is that they are paying a very steep price in lives, equipment and material. 

[NT2C]

https://youtu.be/g9ZSjvlk0hU

Every day, I have more and more respect for what I'll call "Ukrainian Style"

[Anianna]

What a statement.  Saucy!