Seedorf81
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
Posts posted by Seedorf81
-
-
2 hours ago, kevinkin said:
Well that was an unfortunate episode. But it's also unfortunate that Ukraine can't run for cover and they did call the cops in the name of the US. But the cops have so far arrived with insufficient firepower to end the dispute. Maybe that will change.
Cops nearly always try to de-escalate. They prudently and cautiously wait, stall, negotiate and don't use brute and/or deadly force until all others methods fail. For hours and sometime days, if not longer, they try to reason with suspects/perpetrators and even the most brutal criminals. The cops usually try to make the outcome the best for everyone involved. Even if snipers and swat-teams and armored cars are ready to go.
Sure, a policeman sometimes wants to rush in and beat the crap out of a rapist or schoolshooter or whatever, but being in control of your emotions is nearly always better in the long run.
I think in the current Ukraine-war the US so far behaves as a well-trained clever policeman, and I hope they stay that way.
-
Ukrainian divers training in Scotland
-
10 minutes ago, kevinkin said:
I am not advocating nuclear war but advocating being more aggressive short of that. We will never know where the red line is unless we start inching toward it. For example, would a no-fly zone over Ukraine instigate a nuclear war? Don't think so. Would a two week air campaign against Russian positions in Ukraine be dangerous. Maybe, maybe not. How did we come to the conclusion the current level of assistance to Ukraine is safe against escalation? We only know because we are giving it. I think measures directed to remove Russia from Ukraine, while not threatening Russia's existence, will not escalate.
Maybe a year ago I saw a stunning security-cam video of a couple that had a row with their bully-neighbor. After already months or years of tension, this argument was about the placement of garbage-containers.
After a few minutes of discussions, things heated up and yelling turned into screaming, anger into hate. Shoving became pushing and throwing of objects started. Neither the couple, nor the bully-neighbor showed any restraint.
Suddenly the bully walked away, back to his garage, but the woman from the couple kept screaming and throwing things, even when the bully disappeard in his garage. Where he picked up his assault rifle and then reappeared.
Well now.. instead of running away, or running for cover and calling the cops, that woman thought something like what you just wrote:
"We'll never know where the red line is unless we start inching toward it",
and like you she thought that being a little more agressive towards the bully would not escalate.
She walked, screaming and yelling, up to the bully with the gun and, how surprising, got shot. Not fatally wounded she tried to crawl away, and her husband ran towards her to help. But the bully oh so calmly shot both off 'm point blanc until his magazine was empty. Then he went into garage, reloaded, and blew his own brains out.
That woman found the red line by inching towards it..
-
Well, I do not agree with your conclusion.
Suppose the boxing legend Mike Tyson in his prime (fit as USSR in 1970's) had an argument with you ("The West"), and both of you carried a loaded handgun.
Would it make a real difference for the escalatory danger for both of you if, years later, Mike Tyson had become an emaciated cancer-victim, sitting in a wheelchair, while suffering from dementia and parkinsons disease ( Russia in 2023)?
As long as Tyson would be able to pull the trigger of his gun, the real danger would still be exactly the same. How weak one of - or both - the belligerents would be.
Like it or not, it's the gun that matters, not the physical size, or condition, or even the mental state of the one who holds it.
And as long as that gun can kill, you'd better act wisely and yes, careful.
-
5 hours ago, kevinkin said:
By defending Ukraine our material is being sent to their defense and sending Russians to their graves.
All afraid of nuclear war raise your hands. That is really what this comes down to. If you are afraid, you just threw Ukraine under the bus.
But don't forget Ukrainian men are no choir boys. Not that dissimilar to the the Russians they fight. It's a gangster war. Plain and simple. It's just we have a little more pull on and favor for Ukraine. Don't get me started. I am friends of Russians, Ukrainians and those from Belarus. All of them just want to live in Peace and the rigid NATO/West/Ukraine stance is getting in the way. All want to sell what had in Ukraine and move to America. Go figure. Someone in this thread envisioned a wheel in Kiev. What a symbolic target that would be. Meanwhile the bread basket for much of the world will be combat zone for years. BTW does anyone have confidence in the US Joints Chiefs of Staff? They seem so rigid in thought hiding behind FM - xyz or FM - what ever serves your purpose other than winning.
KevinK,
The next sentences are from a few recent reactions you posted:
- "We can't let nuclear blackmail stand".
- "Putin's nuclear buster has to be challenged".
- "Who is afraid of nuclear escalation anyway".
And now you wrote that highlighted (by me) remark in the quoted post.
For starters, I am afraid of nuclear escalation. I even fear the use of just one, yes just one, nuke. Not because of my own safety, (A. The Netherlands isn't exactly a top-target for nukes and B. I'm old, and have lived a less than pleasant life so far, so if dying through a nuke comes next, so be it.), but of the EXCEPTIONAL HORROR a (load of) nukes creates for at least tens of thousands, but possibly hundreds of millions, of humans. (Not to mention flora, fauna, environment etc.)
The effect of nuclear bombs exceeds every other horrible thing we humans used against one another, by so much, that it cannot even be imagined what multiple nukes will do on the scale of gruesome.
Your reactions, and maybe I copied them out of context, seem to indicate to me that you either firmly belief that nukes won't be used (again), WHICH I THINK IS A DANGEROUSLY WRONG ASSUMPTION, or you seem to think that the use of nukes would be less dangerous for the world, then when Russia would defeat Ukraine.
Your remark about "not letting stand nuclear blackmail" baffles me, because the way I see it is that the world since 1945 (or 1949, when Stalin got his nukes) has been living in this constant state of "blackmail". Because possible mutual destruction is a form of two-sided blackmail, and I do not think it wise to disturb that, how ridiculous the situation may be.
Nuclear war is, to say it very euphemistically, not to be taken lightly, but some of your postings make me nervous and I wonder, do you realize what you are talking about?
( Sad disclaimer: For the ones that would assume that I am thinking that the Russians will defeat Ukraine, or assume that I would want the Russians to defeat Ukraine..
I am absolutely sure Russia wil NOT defeat Ukraine and Russia should get the hell outta there.)
-
Dutch ministry of defense, just now:
Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg will donate more APC's, upgraded M113's, to Ukraine.
No numbers yet.
-
I'm no physicist but it almost looked as if the exploding gasses got so hot they became plasma for just a millisecond??
But should that even be possible?
Weird.
-
Mmm, I sense it's almost..
MODERATOR-TIME!
-
53 minutes ago, Audgisil said:
I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.
With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?
Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?
In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?
These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.
Trenches are still the "best" protection against artillery. Mortars, big shells, and even bombs. Mother Earth still provides a surprisingly decent amount of protection. Not perfect, like you say, but it works.
If you're out in the open, you're most likely dead.
-
3 hours ago, AlexUK said:
(..)
i don’t know why that video (and the one of the Ukrainians in the minefield - I have had nightmares about that one) has affected me so much. It is such a terrible waste of lives.
(..)
All the kill-mame-death-destruction video's haunt me. And not just from this war.
(Overly-Sensitive kinda guy, probably.)
But the Ukrainians in the minefield-video struck me most because of the unbelievable courage those guys showed. Courage in a trench or fierce firefight can be an instinctive thing, because there is hardly time to really think about what is happening, until it's over.
But these guys in that minefield knew what was around them. And the ones that survived the first explosions, plus the ones that later arrived in the other Bradley, knew very well how utterly dangerous it was to try and get the wounded out.
But they went. And when those guys blew up in front of their eyes, the next guys never gave up and stepped on that mine-infested soil. WHILE THEY KNEW!!!
I wonder if I have ever seen more courageous people in this whole ****ty war.
-
According to CNN the US airdefense is struggling a bit.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/02/politics/army-air-defense-russia-ukraine-china/index.html
If true, not very good news for Ukraine
-
New camo Russian Black Sea fleet, first spotted on 22nd of june 2023.
http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Navy-Deceptive-Camouflage.html
-
BBC on Wagnergroup in Belarus and more.
-
1 hour ago, Butschi said:
That's not a very fitting comparison, though. To make it semi-valid you would have to tell it like so: The house is burning with people still inside. There are no firefighters, the people inside fight the fire themselves. They are using extinguishers which contain a substance that is cheap and somewhat effective but harms people even years after (not only those in the house right now but also the people who are going to buy the house in 20 years). Years ago, they had protested against the use of such extinguishers and vowed never to use them even if their house was burning. Now the neighbors come over and point out that they had vowed not to use them and that there are other extinguishers that don't cause such problems.
Still not a perfect comparison but way more fitting.
Not entirely though.
They would be using ALL KINDS of extinguishers (Explosives, tanks, bombs, missiles, rockets, bullets, grenades and the lot) that also do damage to the house and the people. But somehow it's only the "cheap one" as you described it, that triggers comments.
-
1 hour ago, Tux said:
They have a job to do I suppose, and in the long-term they have a point.
I think I understand both their request and the likely ‘response’ from Ukraine. Both equally valid in their own ways and contexts.I really do understand the necessity and value of Humans Rights Watch. Seriously. But it is the timing.
If a house is on fire with people still in it, are you gonna walk up to the firefighters and tell them that because of global warming (which for me is the most dangerous thing in the world at this moment), they should reduce the amount of water they're using?
I most certainly would not.
-
"Human Rights Watch urges Ukraine to stop using AP mines (as promised).
I don't like war, I don't like this killing and slaughtering and suffering, and I don't like the use of mines. Period.
But are these Human Rights Watch-people insane???
Asking this NOW? In a full-blown existential war???
How ignorant and naive can you be?
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The problem is that roughly 30% of the population believes anything they READ because they have defective information filters (combination biology and environment). In the world of politics, all you need to do is fool some of the people some of the time and you win an election, get support for undermining democracy, and then do bad things.
Steve
I READ this and I believe it.
But wait... should I?
-
10 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
Everything back to normal with the bunker clown
The acting is fascinating, but should they get Oscars or "Razzies"?!
-
Even weirder?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66023631
I took some time to look better at the available footage of the "mutiny" to check if I really saw what I thought I saw.
Compared to every other uprising, coup, mutiny and/or civil unrest I read about, saw pictures or camera-footage of, or heard witnesses/participants talk about, the Wagner-advance seemed to show a remarkable lack of stress, chaos and apprehension.
To me this whole thing looked more like an ADHDfilled teenager-schooltrip, than an "everyone's future and lives are very much at stake" high-stress occurence.
Prigozjin is looking remarkable relaxed throughout, which is quite a change from his earlier recent appearances. He is laying his life on the line, not only because of the "failure means death"-probabilty, but if there would be any resistance against this mutiny, he would be the prime target. But he, and his entourage, are all the time behaving like it is a walk in the park.
And look at the way most of the troops behave. Do they act like they expect enemy fire? Are they using every bit of cover while advancing? Are they nervously looking out for snipers or armor? Does it look like they expect any resistance at all? No, they go for coffee and food, sit very relaxed on parkbenches and cafe-terraces, stroll as if they know there will be no resistance. Very strange, especially when you realise that a lot of those soldiers recently were in combat at heavily contested frontlines, which tends to make anyone pretty anxious and alert in an urban situation where enemy fire can be expected any minute.
Every other coup or mutiny (etc) had camera-footage and reports that show chaos, excitement and confusion. People being very nervous/agitated. Adjutants, security-guys, messengers and officers, all running around and looking around and gesticulating and a lot of yelling and shouting going on. A continuous reporting and updating of enemy positions, resistance-levels, progression of advancing friendly units, news from the rest of the country, and so on.
I did not see that on a level that I would expect in a "mutiny" that was so sudden, so big and so powerful as this one. Not at all. While the possible, or likely, enemy force could be enormous.
Even when things were unfolding it almost looked to me as if, at least a big part of, the mutineers knew, or at least suspected, that there would be no real resistance.
Maybe they had perfect intel? Maybe it was Wagner self-confidence? Trusting in being lucky? Or, very possible, is my comparison with other mutinies and uprisings wrong?
I don't know what happend, but the fact that even 'Steve" and "TheCAPT" were uniquely shocked, proofs to me that this was one of the weirdest mutinies, and mutiny-endings, EVER.
-
Just for arguments' sake. Could this stranger than strange day have underlying motives like these..
Putin and Prigozjin have been friends all along and still are. Never any real danger for either!
Prigozjin told his friend Putin that he wants to leave Ukraine (because he knows his "superior" Wagnerarmy is being massacered and if he stays he loses everything) and needs a way out.
Lukashenko is considered by both to be a growing liability and needs someone close by as a guard against roque behaviour. Wagner in Belorussia gives also more pressure on Ukraine.
Any diversion from the almost endless bad news producing Ukranian-fiasco is welcome. Any diversion.
In order to reveal where possible adversaries are, creating a very confusing scenario where people will (have to) show where their loyalties lie, can do the trick. (Stalin was very good at that.) Those who support a "mutinous situation" will be registered, and dealt with later on.
As long as it will be clear who the final victor is (Putin), a "threatening" situation is not bad in the long run, because the people will remember that Putin still wins, even in very difficult situations.
Test the loyalty, willingness and capabilities of the Army in case of a coup, without it being a real coup.
Be as Machiavellian as can be in order to "divide and conquer". Show fake weakness, trick, deceive, maskerade, lie. Be silent where people expect you to speak, do nothing where people expect you to act decisively. Make as much chaos as possible, because in the end that will benefit you.
Winning in Ukraine? Stop NATO from growing? Restoring Russia's Greatness?
Who cares? There is only one thing that matters, and that is staying in power.
-
3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
If Putin did have something to do with this then his regime is hanging by a thread. If he told Prig to conduct a large scale, public facing mutiny then he must have a) a huge problem he needed solved and b) absolutely no other way of getting it solved.
For example, he could have had Shoigu and Gerasimov removed by FSB on trumped up charges. And if the MoD tried to stop this from happening, then have Prig's boys mutiny in defense of Putin. The story would then be that Putin acted decisively against the people responsible for the war's failures, THEY tried to stage a coup, and Russia's loyal patriots came to her defense. As an added bonus Putin would be able to see who was loyal, who wasn't, and who couldn't figure it out fast enough.
Situation A (what actually happened) went straight to armed conflict, Situation B (what I just laid out) might have avoided it without Prig. In either case Prig could have been involved physically in the same way, but the PR story for Situation B is vastly superior to Situation A.
Steve
I agree that Putin having a hand in all this is not logic or rational or even really understandable.
But on the other hand:
- you don't stay in power for so long without huge survival-instincts,
- as a bit of a paranoid figure, Putin could or would have been prepared for something like this I think,
- invading Ukraine was also not logical, rational or really understandable for "normal" people,
- he was a spy, and I suspect he still thinks as a spy,
- he and Prigozjin were always very close and during this strange mutiny neither attacked the other one directly, which I think is remarkable,
- there barely has been any serious fighting, which is even more remarkable,
- Prigozjin stops, just like that, after a ridiculous short conversation with Lukashenko? The same Lukashenko that was a total wreck at Victory day? Prigozjin listens to him??
- Prigozjin gets what he wants, just like that? In any real world I know off, mutineers are being shot, not rewarded!
- something had be done with the incompetence of the Russian High Command and that suddenly seems to happen because of Prigozjins action?
Questions without answers perhaps, but I still think there is something very strange.
-
19 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:
How unbelievable this may sound, with Putin's KGB/FSB past, I even think it is possible this Wagner-uprising could be something else than it appears to be.
I still think that there is something very, very, weird going on. Putin either lost his sly, murderous and conniving ruthlessness, or he had something to do with this.
-
It may not be much longer before a certain (former) high-ranking Russian will ask asylum in China..
-
Big can of worms being opened..
Suppose Prigozjin somehow becomes the new Czar of Russia and offers to leave the whole of Ukraine, but only if The West (and Ukraine) will accept him as the new Boss, and the lifting of sanctions?
Holidays for politicians, army-planners and diplomats are to be cancelled I suppose, because ridiculous questions like this aren't so ridiculous anymore.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Seedorf81
Age kills spellingcapabilities?
Your emotions are very understandable.
But there may be the possibility that forummembers who do not propagate escalation, have the same feelings of indignation towards Russia and what it is doing in Ukraine. The main difference is that they know, think, fear, see or maybe fantasize (about) VERY POSSIBLE earthdestroying (no joke, no excaggeration) consequences, which you obviously do not care about as much as they do.
What is less understandable for me, is - as I see it from your posts - your selective anger. How many children with their limbs blown off are, and were, there outside of Ukraine? How many children die of hunger because of murdering idiots like Putin? (I can go on with other examples, all day long!) Why don't I hear you about other suffering??
It feels to me a bit like the Black Lives Matter/anti-slavery people. They have very good reasons for their anger, and I have no problem with them making their pain visible and audible for the rest of the world.
But, and this is a very big but, I cannot understand why they think that their suffering is the worst in the world.
From about 1620 to 1890 (270 years)there were a total 10 million African slaves in the USA, which is - especially for a country that always boasts about "equal chances for everyone" - indeed a disgrace.
But from about 1940 - 1945 (5 years) the Germans had 12 million slaves. And the majority of those slaves wasn't much better off than the majority of the African slaves. But I never ever heard one Black lives matter person mention those. Or the huge numbers of slaves that the Romans had. (Estimates are 10-15% of all people they conquered!) And for sure I never heard one of 'm talk about the current slave-labourers in he world. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/09/13/1122714064/modern-slavery-global-estimate-increase
Again, I understand the wish to utterly crush the Russian army and regime, but if you want to do that without thinking about the REAL POSSIBILITY of earth-shattering consequences for the rest of the world, than in my book you're too centered on what is currently important for your personal situation.
Strangely enough it looks to me that some forummembers care so much about Ukraine, that they don't care about the rest of the world anymore.