aircooled said:
- Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly ordered Russian occupation officials to deport Ukrainian children to Russia under medical relocation schemes.
When this happens, how can we honestly think that just stopping the war and negotiating a peace as it stands will result in less killing? Ukraine is literally fighting for it's own children.
If Ukrainian mothers took to stabbing random Russians anywhere they found them in the world, I would not hold it against them.
It certainly is one aspect I have not seen highlighted much in the news. Has anyone else seen it?
It's been going on for quite a while. I am not entirely how they are "acquiring" these children, but it's pretty damn close to functional genocide. It's clearly very reprehensible.
Maybe the Chinese can get them to... oh... nevermind....
Remember people: IT'S THE FREAKIN' TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, this crap is STILL happening, and considered pretty standard proceedure for some!
In reply to aircooled :
It has been in the news. The Russians are saving them from.... Something.
In reply to aircooled :
This is a Putrid solution to the de-population of mother russia that Frenchy rightly reminds us of .
aircooled said:Remember people: IT'S THE FREAKIN' TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, this crap is STILL happening, and considered pretty standard procedure for some!
Irrespective of the particulars in this instance, this perspective assumes a linear, unidirectional developmental course of humanity, resulting in ever-higher and -wider acceptance of a specific set of moral and ethical ideals. That this has not happened, in defiance of expectations, creates outrage and disbelief. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to suggest that this trend of social development toward a set of largely positivist Judeo-Christian/liberal/Western ideals has ever existed. There are pockets, certainly, but even in the places and peoples where these ideas were created, they have rarely been applied for extended periods of time, and in parts of the world with no such traditions, efforts to impose them have generally failed quite miserably.
I'm not suggesting it is incorrect to react viscerally to actions that are perceived as moral wrongs, but it is baselessly optimistic to expect anything else.
NOHOME said:If Ukrainian mothers took to stabbing random Russians anywhere they found them in the world, I would not hold it against them.
The problem is a fair percentage of the Ukrainian people are from Russia. While most Former Russian people are pro Ukraine. Not all are.
It's like fighting on the Mason Dixon line it's hard to figure out friend or foe without uniforms.
02Pilot said:aircooled said:Remember people: IT'S THE FREAKIN' TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, this crap is STILL happening, and considered pretty standard procedure for some!
Irrespective of the particulars in this instance, this perspective assumes a linear, unidirectional developmental course of humanity, resulting in ever-higher and -wider acceptance of a specific set of moral and ethical ideals. That this has not happened, in defiance of expectations, creates outrage and disbelief. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to suggest that this trend of social development toward a set of largely positivist Judeo-Christian/liberal/Western ideals has ever existed. There are pockets, certainly, but even in the places and peoples where these ideas were created, they have rarely been applied for extended periods of time, and in parts of the world with no such traditions, efforts to impose them have generally failed quite miserably.
I'm not suggesting it is incorrect to react viscerally to actions that are perceived as moral wrongs, but it is baselessly optimistic to expect anything else.
And hence why the human race is doomed.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Speaking for myself, your insightful analysis and pragmatic scholarship has been invaluable. Thank you.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
Glad you've found my contributions useful.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
We've been doomed since the beginning, just like every other species. Entropy is a hell of a thing.
frenchyd said:NOHOME said:If Ukrainian mothers took to stabbing random Russians anywhere they found them in the world, I would not hold it against them.
The problem is a fair percentage of the Ukrainian people are from Russia. While most Former Russian people are pro Ukraine. Not all are.
It's like fighting on the Mason Dixon line it's hard to figure out friend or foe without uniforms.
A lot of the Russians in Ukraine were put there/encouraged to move there by Russia so as to be able to justify annexing Ukraine. "Well, it's really our land anyway, look at all of the ethnic Russians that live there."
What is happening is not a whim. It has been planned for a long time, with chess pieces on various different boards being maneuvered for best advantage, including influencing other nations' politics to try to keep them uninvolved.
Update: Likely most heard about the apartment being hit. The Kh-22 was developed as an anti-shipping missile developed in the early 60's (remember, they are running out of missiles) that has an attack profile of climbing up and diving on its target (mach 3.5 or 4.5 depending on altitude) which makes it very hard to intercept. Apparently very inaccurate, though I wonder how they were supposed to hit a carrier. 2000 lb warhead, so pretty potent. There also seems to be strong believe of some sort of renewed Russian offensive at some point (thus the Belarus concerns) and the need for rifle carrying meat bags.
aircooled said:Apparently very inaccurate, though I wonder how they were supposed to hit a carrier. 2000 lb warhead, so pretty potent.
If things got to the point of shooting missiles at carriers, they probably assumed they'd put a nuclear warhead on it.
Some here might find this Politico piece on the history of Crimea interesting. It's not exactly comprehensive in terms of relating Ukraine to Crimea, and how Ukraine was affected by some of the policies applied in both Ukraine and Crimea, but it's still useful for understanding some of the population shifts that have occurred in the last few centuries.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:aircooled said:Apparently very inaccurate, though I wonder how they were supposed to hit a carrier. 2000 lb warhead, so pretty potent.
If things got to the point of shooting missiles at carriers, they probably assumed they'd put a nuclear warhead on it.
From a guidance standpoint, hitting a carrier is as easy as it gets. They are missing everything else because all they can hit are carriers.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:If things got to the point of shooting missiles at carriers, they probably assumed they'd put a nuclear warhead on it.
Ding! You are correct sir. A bit more research reveals:
Main role of the Kh-22 was to destroy US aircraft carriers and carrier battle groups using its nuclear warhead.
It's only guidance is inertial, so, "I started here, I need to fly this far at this speed, then dive."
Soviets claimed that initial versions of the Kh-22 had a hit probability of 80%. On newer versions this reportedly increased to 97%. However this missile only has an inertial guidance system. dozens these missiles with conventional warheads were launched by Russian bombers against the targets in Ukraine, and proved to be very inaccurate, especially in urban environment. The Kh-22 missiles were missing their targets by several hundred meters and often hitting civilian targets. An error of several hundred meters would not be crucial for a missile with a nuclear warhead. However once armed with a conventional warhead this missile is not suitable for precision strikes. Russians widely used these missiles in Ukraine mainly because dwindling stockpiles of more accurate modern long-range weapons.
I can believe it. I have also heard that in Solodar (the town the Russian just captured after weeks of fighting) STILL had people living there as the Russians took it.
Which reminds me a bit of the scene in the series Chernobyl (again, great series, if for nothing else, as an insight to the soviet / Russian mindset) where they try to move the old lady from her farm. She berates the soldier about the series of people "Germans, Soviets etc" who have told her to leave over the years and she just doesn't give an F anymore.
I cannot find the quote from the scene, but this one is pretty appropriate for this whole situation:
"This is what has always set people apart. A thousand years of sacrifice in our veins. And every generation must know its own suffering."
My son went to college with a guy from Ukraine, his grand mother is still in Eastern Ukraine (Dnipro?) And refuses to leave. Tougher than an anvil.
Saw something, a couple days ago, saying Russia had produced the first sets of the Poseidon nuclear torpedoes and will be deploying them shortly.
Opti said:Saw something, a couple days ago, saying Russia had produced the first sets of the Poseidon nuclear torpedoes and will be deploying them shortly.
I don't think that's relevant to this conflict. Not only will the weapon not be likely to be ready in time, but it would appear that radioactive contamination is a designed byproduct, and I doubt that Russia would want that in it's front yard - especially when they are hoping to gain control over that area.
Let the political hot potato games begin: Germany won't approve Leopard 2 transfers unless the US sends Abrams as well.
This smells like behind-the-scenes hand-wringing from a faction within the German government not wanting to stick its neck out even a little without the US along to shoulder the consequences. In fairness, Germany is more exposed than the US, but this sort of equivocation and unwillingness to take on any sort of political/economic/military risk has been a defining characteristic of most post-war German governments. So far, the US is not moving, but there are talks ongoing, so that may change. I'm more interested in how much pressure other EU members who have expressed a willingness to send their Leopard 2s will be able to exert on Germany; this dynamic of Germany being the naturally dominant European power, but being reluctant to assume the role, has been problematic ever since the 1960s, and is much moreso now that the US is less inclined to push its policies onto fellow NATO members.
There has also been considerable disruption inside the German defense ministry, with the defense minister resigning just a few days ago. Naming a successor and getting them up to speed will take time, and there are noises suggesting that there may be policy shifts both domestically and regarding Ukraine. The next few days could see movement one way or another.
The army has a "boneyard" (ala the Air Force with Davis-Monthan) with early generation Abrams/Bradley/Striker waiting in reserve here. Supposedly we have about 3000 Abrams in storage. I think we can spare a few.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Listening to Peter Z's take a few days ago, some of the issue may be from Germany's post-Cold War (optimistic?) plan to de-militarize? Apparently the recently departed minister was chosen partly for her thoughts towards that goal. The Ukraine war has completely thrown that plan for a loop and she wasn't really equipped for this new normal. Regardless, I could definitely imagine Germany's military policies being somewhat... inconsistent... for a while.
Does Germany want us to send Abrams to Ukraine directly or just send Abrams to countries that are sending Leopards? Sort of how the Polish Mig-29 deal went down... Poland would send them if they got F-16s to replace them.
And yes, I know there is a concern about your technology getting into the wrong hands, but Germany has been very hesitant to give approval for others so send "their" stuff over. The world already responded to their NG concerns, what more do they need?
The problem is not that the US can't spare the tanks, but rather that Ukraine can't support them. The Abrams is hugely labor- and resource-intensive to operate and maintain, and Ukraine just doesn't have the means to do so. One of the major stumbling blocks is the turbine; the Leopard 2, being a diesel, is much easier to deal with. And the US is not going to be maneuvered into a diplomatic corner by the likes of Germany when it comes to anything related to the military. It is a clumsy attempt, and isn't going to win the Germans any points in Washington.
I don't listen to Zeihan - I find him grating - but the German left has been talking about disarmament since 1945. It has never been realistic, and its obligations under NATO would have made it impossible in any case. With the SPD in charge of the current coalition government, there were always going to be calls for it; the mistake was putting one of the loonies in charge of the defense ministry, which was most certainly part of a power-sharing deal that made political sense in peacetime, but none whatsoever with any sort of military threat in the offing.
You'll need to log in to post.
