Youtube comments of Tx240 (@Texas240).
-
6400
-
2800
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
785
-
647
-
532
-
441
-
425
-
415
-
386
-
371
-
360
-
357
-
353
-
322
-
320
-
318
-
307
-
288
-
281
-
270
-
256
-
250
-
248
-
242
-
239
-
224
-
222
-
218
-
213
-
210
-
193
-
189
-
180
-
177
-
170
-
169
-
168
-
167
-
163
-
161
-
157
-
155
-
148
-
146
-
144
-
136
-
132
-
132
-
126
-
126
-
124
-
121
-
119
-
114
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
102
-
101
-
101
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
96
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
89
-
87
-
87
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
Actually the 2.5 to 1 KIA does indicate a better attrition situation for Ukraine. Russia has more wounded that don't return to the war or take longer or are improperly released for duty and less capable (for example, a TBI patient sent back to the front and he gets dizzy or blacks out when he's next exposed to artillery noise).
Russia only has a 3 to 1 ratio of men over Ukraine.
So, even if they're close on casualties removing troops from the fight, Ukraine has a huge manpower advantage of most of their manufacturing being outsourced to Western countries (that whole "no aid to Ukraine because of the cost" being silly because aid to Ukraine is financial stimulus for the countries actually building the equipment).
Russia, the largest country in the world, needs more men to simply maintain the societal infrastructure. AND, men are needed for the factories.
Russian unemployment is about 0% (zero). Factories are fighting with the military for workers. Both are under quotas. Both sectors can't fill the quotas, especially for skilled manufacturing fields (welders, CNC operators). People with mechanical or trade skills were very desirable for the military and either already signed up or were mobilized for their skills.
Russia has more people but it doesn't have ENOUGH people.
Plus, the numbers game assumes that every person in Russia, including the oligarchs and politicians are willing to fight to the last man.
As it drags on, as Ukraine's strategic bombing campaign continues to eliminate Russian income streams and production for local use, and as more and more Russians realize the war isn't just something on the TV but actually something that can affect them and people they care about, the less likely they are going to want that "to the last man" fight.
72
-
72
-
71
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
The thing is, if it was a Russian missile that was shot down and hit the ground, it wouldn't necessarily explode as it would normally.
If the theory is that the s300 missile missed the intercept with a Russian cruise missile, there's 2 issues. 1st, where did the cruise missile go? 2nd, as with the shot down Russian cruise missile scenario above, the S300, if it had missed its intercept with a cruise missile, wouldn't explode upon impact, it would just crash.
When you say those theories are being entertained in Poland, I'm guessing it's by people who don't know anything about how missile warheads work or politicians who are trying to keep people calm...as if a Ukrainian missile causing the deaths is better than a Russian missile doing so.
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
The fact is, only a fellow watch enthusiast will possibly notice what brand watch you're wearing and only a watch snob will care.
So, people just dipping their toes into the wristwatch wearing world shouldn't be afraid to start off with something that fits their budget and is visually appealing to them.
One thing to keep in mind are most watches, of any price point, will lose value. So, don't be afraid to try the pre owned market, even for lower end peices, to alleviate some pinch if/when you flip it.
If you just want something that tells time without digging for your phone, anything quartz will do (and do it for cheap). Mechanical peices, on the other hand, are little machines, dressed in art and craftsmanship that you carry on your wrist.
Quartz, while accurate, won't remind you it's on your wrist in a quiet room, with its fast tinking heartbeat, the way a mechanical will. I grin whenever I catch myself wondering, "what is that faint sound?" only to realize it's the watch on my wrist as I'm rubbing my forehead in a quiet room.
If you're thinking to buy an expensive name brand to impress people, you will be disappointed in the results. As I said, only other watch people will possibly notice what brand you're wearing or know what significance it may have.
Normal people will just say, "nice watch" or "is that a Rolex?" (it's just the name most non watch folks think of 1st when they think "watch").
Another watch that gets recognized and earns you instant "watch street cred" is a Casio G-Shock.
Watches are art, tools, and a form of expression. If your going to spend money on one, buy one that's pleasing to you and don't worry what others think about. Most normal people won't think anything at all about it, except that you can tell the time without a phone.
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
It's ironic Lt Marvel was supposed to be the "strong woman" movie. I forget what the woke crowd didn't like about Alita.
The irony is that Alita actually had character development and a story arc.
Much like Luke, in Ep. 1 (the REAL episode 1,not the jar jar episode 1), she's an insignificant and relatable character that becomes strong as the plot unfolds. She also has to deal with failure and loss, relatable qualities that the viewer can empathize with.
Plus I've liked Christoph Waltz, plays Alita's "dad" or mentor, since first seeing him in The Burbs (1989, Hanks, Feldman).
There's also the A, B plotlines working in the film.
I don't read manga or know anything else about Alita or this universe. However, the movie stands on its own and is an enjoyable watch and something parents and kids can enjoy together.
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
@DeMan59 The problem with saying, "it's not our war," is THAT is exactly what the US said at the outset of WWII as Hitler said the EXACT SAME things when they invaded Poland as Putin said when his Russia invaded Ukraine.
Putin isn't just trying to subjugate Ukraine. He's trying to rebuild the second Russian Empire (aka Soviet Union). He's openly stated that the fall of (really the implosion of, though) the Soviet Union is the worst thing to happen to Russia.
Putin's goal is to reclaim ALL former Soviet republics and territory that Putin views as part of Russian sphere of influence.
Many of those countries are now NATO members. If we, the USA, don't help Ukraine make it untenable for Russia to be in Ukraine and force Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, it will be the same as us giving Putin the green light to invade the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), small countries that Putin views as part of the Russian Empire.
At THAT point, NATO Article 5 requires us to defend those countries directly, not just send aid.
So, if we don't help Ukraine because "it's not our war", we will have a much more expensive fight that includes American casualties and possibly nuclear armageddon as we send men and equipment to the Baltics to directly fight Russia. At that point, it's much, MUCH more expensive than simply sending materiel to Ukraine and letting them do the fighting to prevent further Russian aggression in Europe.
As the old oil change ad pointed out when a car repair shop said, "you can pay me now (for the oil change) or you can pay me later (for a new engine)".
We're spending money to update the American arsenal and create American jobs (90% of "aid to Ukraine" is spent in the USA).
So, there's even an added immediate benefit of economic stimulus in the US while we work to enjoy the future benefits of not having to send troops to fight Russia in European NATO countries and prevent nuclear war.
If you want to know how "not our war" goes when wars start in Europe, I really recommend looking at what happened during the outset of WWII.
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
"missed a turn..."
As a truck driver, with over 2 million miles driven, I tried explaining to the safety department that
A) GPS, maps, truck stop guide books, notepad, calculator, etc) have all lived in the cell phone for over 15 years
B) tapping the phone screen to activate or center such a basic work related function as directions notes or map and glancing at such at an appropriate time (no other vehicles in front of or next to) is MUCH safer than missing a fkn turn if the GPS is lagging, the street isn't properly marked, or isn't marked with all its multiple names or HWY numbers, etc and then having a now stressed out and lost driver trying to find his way back to where he's going amid streets that the vehicle possibly won't fit under or around.
Missing a turn and having to get back on course is the ULTIMATE driving distraction in a commercial motor vehicle.
Nope, the "safety department" which has a combined total of probably zero safe driving miles in a commercial motor vehicle and who's personnel do the EXACT same thing adjusting their radio or AC via a dash touch screen write me up for putting safety, through experience, first.
I'm such a terror that even the Human Resources Department (aka "firing dept") wanted to get involved when I tried explaining the reality of the job situation. And, that's as a dedicated 16 year employee of the company with over 1 million consecutive safe miles driven.
Imagine the horror if people who actually understand practical safety and practice it daily were listened to by the people sitting in big offices and comfy chairs...
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
How ironic then that Ukraine hadn't been allowed to join NATO, and wasn't being considered for NATO membership the way other former Soviet republics had, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
For the largest country in the world, Russia, to say, "Oh, we need this little bit more territory so we can feel safe from invasion," is absolutely ludicrous. Russia isn't some small country surrounded by enemies, the way Israel is for example. Nobody is or was going to invade Russia... Until Russia provoked the Kursk SMO by its "preemptive invasion of Ukraine". Even Prigozhin said as much in his "truth propaganda" before his march towards Moscow.
Finally, using Russian logic of "we need that territory as a buffer between us and NATO, what happens if Russia controls Ukraine? Now, the Russian border is against Poland and the Baltic states and Russia will need THAT "little bit more" territory to have a buffer between Russia and NATO.... repeat until the 3rd Russian Empire spans Europe. It's madness and silly.
Nobody would benefit from invading Russia except China. China actually has the population and expertise to make use of Russia's natural resources and vast territory. In fact, it's been argued that Putin's special military operation and destruction of the Russian economy has made Russia a resource colony of China.
European countries aren't interested in world or hemisphere domination the way Russia, China, and the USA are and NATO isn't the homologous organization that the USSR or Russian Federation are where the Supreme Leader of Russia has total control and final say of what the organization does. If the Russian Federation was NATO, Russia or Putin couldn't have invaded Ukraine with all available resources.
If Poland wants to invade Ukraine, NATO members aren't going to support Poland in its offensive war of aggression. Ukraine was never going to invade Russia. Again, Prigozhin discussed how Putin's SMO had made Ukraine MUCH more militarily capable than before 2022 or 2014.
All these pro Russia youngsters have never read a history book or heard of WWII or Adolf Hitler. WWII was entirely about one man who needed "just a little bit more territory, I promise!" to feel safe from invasion... Invasion by people who might not agree with a 1,000 year Reich spanning the world as the next "little bit" of buffer zone was invaded.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
@tb6031 you don't understand economics or the global trade and production cycle. The reason people buy cheaper imported products instead of the same product there more expensive but domestically made, when such products are even available, is that their employers aren't paying them a fair share of the profits the workers are earning for the business. If you want to jump start American domestic production, you'd need to convince, or force, businesses to raise wages to create the purchasing power we had back when "America was great".
You are definitely not going to jumpstart American domestic manufacturing by just forcing foreign products to be more expensive or similarly priced as domestic products that people already can't afford.
Worse, part of your "short term pain" is going to be long term. American companies that use Chinese components to build products HERE and employ US workers will begin moving overseas to countries without the tarrifs in order to stay in business. Once companies leave, they aren't coming back and that's definitely not "short term".
Also, please realize that Trump's "tarrifs expert" is an imaginary person "Ron Varo". Look that name up to see just how foolish and uninformed Trump is on tarrifs. Then realize that you've latched on to the incorrect information your demigod has fed you..because he doesn't know any better, doesn't care about you, and just needs your anger and frustration directed at someone besides him because Trump just wants to be in power without concern for governance.
25
-
From Machiavelli, "Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies"
Part of a dictators problems are that he can't have one unified military, unless he wants to risk them overthrowing him.
Russia had several militaries and several more Wagner-like PMCs. The idea is that Putin prevents a single rival from being able to muster enough support from the military and gentry.
The downside is, if you send your other armies to fight in a foreign country, and piss everyone off, one of those subordinates might still be strong enough... Especially if your brand of demonstrating "leadership" and "power" is hiding in your bunker and pretending everything is fine.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
2:10 shame on Dr Drew. 30k ANNUAL deaths from influenza.
We just hit 30k deaths from covid19 in TWO MONTHS, with stay at home orders and just 600k cases.
Based on those numbers, letting the virus run rampant with businesses as usual would result in 16 MILLION deaths in the USA.
The virus is new. Nobody has any immunity to it until they've had it. And, with at least 8 regional strains, there's no evidence yet that there is significant immunity after surviving infection.
Shame on these quacks. They should remember "first, do no harm." Saying that the entire population should be exposed to covid19 and let the chips fall where they may is NOT "do no harm."
Britain initially started with this idea of letting covid19 run through the population to allow herd immunity. Then the explosion of cases and hospitalizations started,including several prominent people in government.
Then Britain came to their senses shut things down.
On the topic of herd immunity, you need about 70% of population to contract the disease. 70% of 328 million is 229 million. That would result in 45 million hospitalizations and 11 MILLION deaths.
Here's the fun part. All those deaths and hospitalizations would occur in about 4 months. That would CRUSH the medical system. European countries that were hard hit and New York didn't have enough ppe. That was with several thousand cases in a few weeks. Millions of cases in a few months would result in a medical system that becomes unsafe for doctors and nurses that leads to cascade failures of the system as medical personnel become sick or refuse to work. That leads to fewer people to care for ever more patients, no room in medical facilities for patients to convalesce, follow on deaths from other causes that can't be treated because the system is overwhelmed.
Letting this new, highly contagious virus, that can be deadly, run rampant is sheer foolishness and folly.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
2:25 Ballistic missiles require something like the patriot to counter them.
Ballistic missiles are, by definition "hypersonic". Remember, the kinzhal "hypersonic" missile is a ballistic missile. It's just been adapted to launch from an aircraft instead of the ground.
So, ground launched ballistic missiles are much harder to counter than cruise (or even air launched ballistic) missiles because of both the speed and trajectory.
A cruise missile (or kinzhal) is basically flying parallel to the earth at a constant altitude until descending on its target, and can be engaged at any point by any system capable of tracking and reaching it.
With a ballistic trajectory, the missile is gaining altitude that may take it out of range or targeting parameters of some systems or significantly reduce the effective range of a counter missile system because the ballistic trajectory takes the missile up higher.
Then, there's the speed. On the way down to the target, the ballistic missile is heading on the earthward part of its oval trajectory at hypersonic speeds. To counter that, you need something very fast, with sufficient altitude capability and the targeting software to engage a hypersonic ballistic missile (instead of merely to engage an "aircraft" as normal cruise missiles resemble).
Technically, the S300 fired as a ground to ground missile is a ballistic missile in its trajectory. Iirc, non patriot systems were able to counter this. Perhaps the North Korean (or Iranian? You used both countries in the report) ballistic missiles offer greater range, altitude, speed, or warhead size than the S300. Having longer rage would allow the launchers to be moved back farther away from Ukrainian retaliation on the launch vehicles.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
I'm not a fan of Trump. However, any real Republicans know that Russia isn't a friend.
There's a few key points on the Ukraine war.
First, Ukraine is fighting the exact same war that the American Colonies were fighting in 1775. In our effort to gain independence from England, we had help from the French and that help was not trivial or insignificant. If France hadn't helped the colonists, America might not be a thing.
Second, related to the above point, Ukraine is more different than Russia in terms of language and culture than the American Colonies were different from England!
I have a Russian speaking friend living in Ukraine, one of the people who Putin was allegedly "helping". She had to flee a city in the Donbas during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since February 2022, she's denounced her Russian heritage and says she can't understand what's wrong with Russians in Russia that they allow or support Putin in the bombardment of Russian speaking areas of Ukraine.
I had learned Russian and was surprised how different Ukrainian is from Russian when she started learning Ukrainian. I can't understand any of it.
My point here is that Ukraine is not "part of Russia", not culturally or linguistically or historically. Kyiv existed as a city long before Moscow or Russia.
Third, the war in Ukraine is actually a fight to PREVENT WWIII. Our inaction and failure to fulfill our obligation under the Budapest Memorandum to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear deterrent. Our inaction in 2014 was the exact same thing as giving Putin a green light to continue his invasion and ultimately his efforts to rebuild the Russian Empire.
After listening to julia ioffe interview on PBS (available on YouTube), it's clear that Putin really thinks it's Russia's right to re-acquire territory that Putin thinks should be within the Russian sphere of influence. This territory includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. All are NATO members. Not stopping Russia in Ukraine and aiding Ukraine until Russia withdraws from all areas of Ukraine would lead to invasion of NATO countries that were formerly Soviet states.
Ukraine is spending blood to prevent WWIII in addition to fighting for their own independence.
Any real Republican remembers or knows of Ronald Reagan. In his words:
"Simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly."
And
"There is no safety, no security in the appeasement of evil."
Evil and bullies don't need provocation to do evil deeds. Inaction never stopped a bully's next beating. He needs to be stopped, just as Putin does.
Finally, as regards cost, allowing Ukraine to spend the blood to stop a US and NATO adversary is a bargain. In a more direct sense, money spent helping Ukraine is also a bargain compared to what it would cost when Putin invades a NATO country that he views as "Russian territory".
And, if Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine it is guaranteed that he will enter other former Soviet states that are now NATO members.
Incidentally, in the ioffe interview, she pointed out how Putin thinks every American president, including Trump, was a rube and not his equal. Putin specifically brought young, attractive translators to meetings with Trump to distract Trump.
Most Russians look down on blacks and Putin thought Obama was just a stupid black. So, Putin was anti America, regardless of who was in the White House.
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
@ebolduc4150 - inside of a vehicle in the sun gets much hotter than air temperature would indicate.
If he didn't drop it or bang a tool against it (the latter is something that can happen without realizing at the time), it's possible that the heat inside the vehicle warped the case which led to a screen crack.
Then, when you returned to the truck and it was cooler in the evening, the phone was cooler. So, you never realized that you cooked it in the car. Even in this scenario, it's still user error by leaving the phone where it could be damaged by excessive heat.
A phone is a sensitive piece of electronics, not a hammer. Yet, people treat the phone as though it's a tough tool.
All that said, I have dropped my several years old Samsung S9 from 6 to 8 feet up, having it land and scrabble across gravel or concrete. Other than scuffs, the only damage on the phone is where I cracked it trying to open it, before realizing that it was the newer generation of phones without removable batteries.
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@JakeBroe - Perun did a really good presentation on the politics and risks of escalation.
Russia is the first nuclear power to start a war and then threaten nuclear weapons once they realized their plan was woefully insufficient.
Yes, I've seen your vid on why Russia won't use nuclear weapons, however the fact remains that if Russia was crazy enough to attack a near-peer European neighbor, the possibility exists that Putin, delusional as he is, might do something crazier.
Then, there's the suspicion that the West is drawing it out to keep Russia hooked long enough to more fully demolish Russia's military capacity than if overwhelming aid had been immediately given to Ukraine and Russia was forced to withdraw earlier.
Ironically, while horrible for Ukraine in the short term (and I have a friend there, now), this provides greater security for Ukraine and Europe in the longer term.
If there is any truth to this, then Europe and NATO absolutely owe Ukraine everything thrust need to fight and rebuild, since they are spending the blood to fight for the security of all of Europe.
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Years ago, I was at a club, there was a somewhat disorganized line at closing for valets and people waiting for designated driver to bring car around.
Attractive blonde girl is waiting nearby and I engage her in conversation, touching her arm as I did so. She recoiled and I can't remember now if she actually voiced it, but her meaning was clear: "eww get away."
Nonplussed, I immediately turned to her chubby, not as attractive (fat) friend and said,
"Wow. YOU are a really good friend. You hang out with HER (actually pointing at the snooty hot girl) and have to put up with all her BS. She's probably been complaining about how there's no hot guys here. Meanwhile all night, she's had lots of guys approaching her and chasing them away while you'd actually just like to meet some people and have a good time."
The friend's face was beet red and her eyes and expression said "omg, yes exactly!"
The snooty girl's jaw actually dropped that someone tele-strated her BS.
The valet pulled up with the car and me and my group left. So, there wasn't time for any awkwardness or escalation
Still hilarious to picture the juxtaposed facial expressions of the 2 girls.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I have a friend in Ukraine who lived near Donetsk (in the "Donbas" area as it's referred to when talking about the area where Russia was supposedly saving Russian speakers). I've been following the situation since before the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
First, before 2014, when Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and Crimea, there was very little discrimination against Russian speaking people and certainly no persecution or hostility. Discrimination only started AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea were already semi autonomous regions within Ukraine that mostly governed themselves. Also, EVERY oblast in Ukraine, including the "Russian speaking" ones voted to leave Russia at the fall of the Soviet Union.
Residents didn't much care about what Kyiv OR Moscow was doing. When I asked my friend about the about the Maiden protests, she responded trivially, "that's far away and has nothing to do with us".
Second, the original "separatists" weren't Ukrainian. They were foreigners that were transported to Ukraine by Russia (similar to how after the 2022 invasion Russia transported African or Middle Eastern immigrants to the EU border, gave them bicycles, and told them to request refugee status thereby weaponizing refugees). These Russian proxies, criminals and anarchists, were supported by Russian special forces that trained the proxies in basic tactics, use of captured equipment and would call in Russian helicopter gunship support when the inexperienced Ukrainian army tried to respond.
Again, the original "separatists" weren't Ukrainian. Internally, Russia referred to them as "asymmetric fighters". As a bonus, the first president of the "Donetsk People's Republic or DNR, wasn't Ukrainian OR Russian.
Third, my Russian speaking friend (who's grandmother was so Russian she would talk about the good old days when Stalin was in charge), referred to herself as "Russian" prior to 2022. She, one of the people Putin was allegedly trying to save called the Russian proxies "t*rr*rists" as she fled with her school age daughter to a city farther west in Ukraine. The Russian grandmother was eliminated in an artillery attack by the "separatists" as they used the standard Russian tactic of bombard a city before moving into it. She refused to leave her home and was eliminated by the people Putin sent to "save" her.
Fourth, regarding the claims that Russia had to act in 2022 because Ukraine had been shelling Russian occupied Donbas since 2014, recall that Russian artillery has completely leveled several Ukrainian cities to nothing but rubble in mere months. If Ukraine had been shelling the Donbas area for 8 YEARS, there would be no buildings standing and no people living there because no places to live or work! In fact MOST of the artillery damage that is featured in Russian propaganda of eastern Ukraine was actually leftover damage from the Russian proxies as they moved west.
Finally, my formerly "Russian" friend became a "proud Ukrainian" in February 2022 and her and her young daughter were helping make camo netting, candles, and molotovs to support the Ukrainian defenders. She hates Putin and says what he's done makes her angry. Putin stole her Russian heritage by making being Russian bad. She was shocked by the savagery unveiled in the areas that had been occupied by the Russian troops or more rightly shocked that she thought she was Russian before seeing what "Russian" really was.
Fortunately she still has a good enough sense of humor that when her washing machine broke and I told her not to steal her neighbor's machine, she could laugh and remind me that she ISN'T a Russian.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2014 to protect Russian speakers because they weren't being persecuted. By 2022, most discrimination of Russian speakers who fled west was gone because those people had already integrated into new communities. And, as mentioned, since there were still buildings standing, Ukraine hadn't been "shelling Donbas for 8 years".
There was no reason to invade other than because the world did virtually nothing in 2014 and Putin thought the response in 2022 would be similar and Putin could proceed with his territory grab and empire building.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Russia doesn't control the skies. Both sides have proliferated ground based air defenses (GBAD) that prevent the other side from safely operating aircraft.
Russian air superiority jets stay over Russian controlled territory, protected by their GBAD and lob R37 long range missiles at Ukranian aircraft when they are detected by Russian AWACS over the black sea or Russian territory or ground based radar. These long range attacks are mainly to make the Ukrainians evade and stop trying to do whatever they're trying to do. The R37 was designed to hit B52 stratofortress bombers, not fighters and while very fast, isn't maneuverable.
Unfortunately, the F-16 offers no safe counter to either the Russian GBAD or the Russian R37 vollies.
The R37 has a range of up to 200 km. The US AIM 120 AMRAAM that the F-16 will carry has a range of about 60km. The F-16s will never get in range to attack Russian aircraft. The Russians will simply fly away from the F-16s and encourage the F-16s to fly over Russian GBAD to snack on a few missiles. The F-16s will decline the offer and the Russian jets will turn around and pop off a couple more R 37s. That's modern air combat. Air to air battles aren't "dogfights" and the F-16 brings nothing valuable to the Ukrainian air superiority situation.
Where the F-16 could be effective and where it will have to be effective if air superiority is the goal is SEAD or suppression of enemy defenses. The Ukrainians have already dabbled in firing Western HARM anti radiation (anti radar) missiles from Mig 29s. The F-16 will offer better integration of these missiles as well as other guided missiles like the AGM 65 maverick and various unguided munitions (bombs and rockets) which can all be valuable for elimination of Russian GBAD.
The problem is that Ukraine will lose jets and pilots doing this, hunting the things designed to shoot them down. The Russian PANTSIR system can integrate multiple launchers into each other's radar so that "dark" launchers can still fire at Ukrainians hunting the units with active radar.
Think Iraq 1, where the US blitzed Saddam's GBAD and where we (the US) lost aircraft and had pilots paraded on Iraqi TV. Then turn that up to 11 and you have what Ukraine is facing in trying to deal with Russian GBAD.
The F-16 will be similar to the Leopard, except even less significant. Ukraine operates the Mig 29. It's the functional equivalent of the F-16 in flight performance, munitions carrying ability, and mission profiles. The F-16 doesn't bring much to Ukraine that the Mig 29 doesn't already give them... Except more airframes that can be sacrificed in Ukraine's fight for independence, ultimately, from Russia.
What Ukraine REALLY needs is the Swedish Gripen. First, this jet can use the British Meteor, which the F-16 currently doesn't. This is a longe range air to air missile that would give rough parody to Russia's R37. It's a little shorter but designed to hit fighters and so, more of a threat than the R37.
The Gripen can also carry the Storm Shadow missile which the F-16 doesn't. Ukraine is currently using aging and few Su 24 aircraft to carry and launch the Storm Shadow. Having Gripen would ease the burden on the Su24s and allow Ukraine to continue using such long range missiles as the Soviet era jets wear out.
Gripen for long range air to air and Storm Shadow missions with F-16 for SEAD, close air support and locking down the Black Sea with AGM 84 Harpoon missiles in addition to combined use of ATACMS, decoys, S200s, etc would be an ideal combination to enable Ukraine to blitz Russian GBAD.
The problem arises as Ukraine closes distance to Russia. The ground launched anti air missiles can be inside Russian territory which means they're safe from Western or US weapons and free to shoot down F-16s over Ukraine.
The F-16 alone will be less of a game changer than Leopard tanks were. It's ironic that one of the best dog fighters ever built will see it's most significant use in the ground attack role in Ukraine and virtually no air to air combat (unless helicopters count).
14
-
@matthiasdarrington3271 - No. At first I thought it was odd that Putin would attack at this time of year, knowing that he'd be road locked because of muddy terrain.
Think about it a bit more and it makes sense why he chose this timing.
First, the Russian supply trucks are having enough trouble not breaking down on road. There's no way Russia would try to move supplies off road. Even if tanks and IFV could move off road, they won't (or won't very far) because the trucks they need to protect are on the road.
Second, moving off road will burn more fuel and lead to more breakdowns of tanks and IFV that also already have maintenance issues from not being used or maintained properly during long storage.
Third, Russians are having enough trouble navigating by road. Take them off road and it's entirely possible that they entirely miss their objective. Sure, it's possible to navigate by map and compass, but not nearly as easy as with a GPS in every vehicle, especially with only the vehicle commander or possibly the unit commander knowing where they are and where they are going. Heck, the US had reservist convoys get lost in the middle east and the Russians don't seem to have top level training either.
Fourth, if you sent vehicles off road to attempt to maneuver around defenders to strike them to clear a path for the trucks, Russia still needs tanks and IFV with the trucks to guard them. That means both the expeditionary elements and the security element are weaker.
Fifth, and probably most important is that Russia currently doesn't control territory as it advances (except in a few areas, mainly near Kyiv and eastern Ukraine 2014 invasion front line). What Russia controls are the roads. Securing a road is MUCH easier and requires much less manpower than securing a region.
As Russia moves further into Ukraine, they have to leave troops back for security. That's less available to push an attack. As it becomes necessary to secure an entire region to prevent Ukraine also traveling off road to attack from random directions, that's a lot more manpower that must be spent on security instead of on advancing.
Ask yourself why Russia chose to invade Ukraine during this time of year. The muddy terrain is a double edged sword.
As soon as the ground dries up and Ukraine hunting teams can freely move off-road to attack Russian positions unexpectedly and unpredictably, the invasion is over. Russia will have to dig in and fortify positions it holds to prevent such counterattacks by Ukraine from any angle. Russian ability to sustain those troops that are dug in only becomes even more difficult as they still have weak logistics support.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
"I love women; I dislike toxic feminism."
If something is true for the vast majority of cases, generalization or hyperbole is totally fine.
Anyone who nitpicks that is just "butt hurt" (probably because they fall into that generalized category even though they try hard to convince themselves that they don't).
Marriage used to be supported by societal norms. Now, in our society, a woman's right to act on her instinctive hypergamy is more important than the stability of a marriage or the mental and emotional health of children from that marriage (as shown in inequality of custody and access during divorce).
Women simply can't understand society from a man's perspective because they get their social value front-loaded and FOR FREE.
Women must only do 3 things to have value: show up, be reasonably young, have a vagina.
Men must EARN their value and continously improve to compete with other men.
Tyler from RSD has a great saying. "The one thing every woman wants is to be with an alpha male. The only thing she wants MORE is to NOT be with a beta male."
Men don't earn blue ribbons just for showing up the way women do.
Further, a man who's trying to make a relationship work must pay very close attention to the woman's attraction level and walk a very fine line between not giving enough non sexual attention (validation) which will make him seem like a cold fish and giving too much validation which will decrease the woman's attraction to him and eventually run her off.
Of course, the above doesn't apply if the woman is just in the relationship because she entered her "beta male provider seeking phase."
In that case, we go right back to the point about women just needing to show up to be regarded as desirable.
Society brainwashes men from a young age to be beta. A few guys are naturally more alpha with women (although even men who are alpha in career are beta when faced with a female).
For those of us who succumbed to this brain washing, having mentors like this channel are paramount to being able to finally fix parts of our lives that were never quite right, despite doing what we'd been previously taught was "correct", by society.
Any men who actually read this are nodding there heads up and down.
Most women who would read this are simply confused. They think men just know how to be MEN, despite the courts promoting mothers raising boys and the beta brainwashing present in most music, TV, and film.
Ladies, have you ever sung along with a song and fantasized about the singer when the lyrics were something about how he'd do anything for the girl, follow her anywhere, can't live without her, etc?
Ladies, how often did you find a man attractive in REAL LIFE who actually acted that way towards you? Never?? But, how can that be? It was so romantic and sexy when you were singing along with the idea!
Men who grew up listening to all that beta propaganda need to re-learn real, actual male to female social dynamics (and even just how to succeed in life in general, since so much of being beta is pleasing others at the man's own expense).
Most guys aren't born knowing how to be men. It's guys like in this channel who teach it.
Women can't act like women unless men act like men. Women can't be truly happy unless they are able to act in accordance with their natural feminine energy. Women should be glad there are mentors like this channel. Unless more men turn into MEN, most women will never have a chance to really exist in their feminine where they can find happiness or contentment.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
4:42 Re, wanting a long term relationship
Guys, you MUST realize that women DO NOT love the way that men do.
The saying is, "children, dogs, and women are loved unconditionally." Notice what's missing from that list.
LTRs are possible, but it's a lot of work for the man. He has to constantly be aware of his lady's attraction towards him and he will have to game her to maintain and rebuild her attraction as it naturally ebs and flows.
This is even true for the top tier guy in this story.
The guy must maintain his position as a POTENTIAL source of validation for the woman who is attracted to him, as opposed to an ACTUAL source of validation.
This means she wants you to tell her she looks pretty but you don't tell her. Or, you combine the compliment with a jab. Wow, babe. You look really pretty today...except the circles under your eyes.
Don't be afraid to tell her "no" or to upset her. Women thrive on and require emotional stimulation. Anger and sadness are emotions. Don't be a dick, but definitely insert some drama into the relationship occasionally. If you don't, SHE will.
A relationship with an 8,9,10 is more work, requires more gaming, more dominating, passing more shit tests where her cave man brain is looking for cracks in your behavior as her man.
When she starts acting stupid, give her time and space to fuck off for a bit. Don't chase or pester her. If you're doing the above correctly, she'll be back pestering YOU and more submissive than before because she knows you're A-OK without her.
DON'T tell her you love her. You can show her, but if you tell her you remove the mystery.
Humans, especially women, want what we can't have. When you tell her that you love her, you remove the doubt and make yourself less attractive.
Best of luck guys. Remember, once you know and play by the rules of the game you stand a better chance of winning.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@clutchboi4038 - to be fair, time does fly. I'm early 40s and 25 feels like just a few years ago.
Fortunately, as men age, if we keep in decent shape and learned a few things along the way, we're more attractive and have a much wider pool of women to choose from than a woman of the same age.
Feminism forgot to tell women that their value is front loaded, completely without merit and decreases over time. If she wants a decent man at 39, she's gonna need to learn how to make a mean sandwich and fetch cold beer. Whatever she's "accomplished" as a single woman over the last 20 years is irrelevant to any guy who would consider being her partner.
How's she going to improve his life and what is she bringing to the table in their relationship are the important things.
I don't see her improving any man's life and she's not bringing anything to the table besides her wants, desires, and dreams.
Heck, even those bachelors that white knighted are going to dude-bro their way into much younger, more fun girls once the show is over.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
The controller wasn't a problem. Ask the drone operators in the Ukraine war.
The red flag was carbon fiber and carbon fiber connected to titanium (depending on how they're attached, carbon fiber will leach molecules from other metals resulting in galvanic corrosion). Stockton Rush was about profitability. If he used aluminum connectors to save weight or money, the problem is even worse.
Regardless, carbon fiber is weak to being compressed. It's effective for use in aircraft because it's subjected to expansion pressure which it's strong against.
However, a passenger aircraft at 30,000 is only subjecting the carbon fiber to a pressure of about 10 psi which is much MUCH lower pressure than used under water at Titanic depths. In fact, that 30,000 ft altitude airplane use is about the same as the pressure at only about 1 meter under water. Yet, they were using the submersible repeatedly at pressure of over 5,000 psi.
As a bonus, carbon fiber has a fatigue factor. It gains fatigue that weakens it every time it's subjected to stress.
This incident was definitely inevitable and carbon fiber was the red flag.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@cruiser6260 - have you ever done something that caused you frustration and you vented that frustration on somebody else?
Really, you were mad at yourself for doing the thing or setting up the situation that got you frustrated.
Also, have you ever enjoyed or liked something but didn't like that you liked it? I like eating ice cream. But, I don't like that I like it because know it makes me fat if I don't add to my workout or reduce some other normal healthier food to make up the difference.
Combine those 2 effects and that's why the girl appears genuinely mad at him; in part, she is. However, at the end of the day, she's still finding him the most attractive AND she doesn't like that fact (mind you, this probably isn't actually on her though process, it's instinctual feelings).
Besides him being strong enough to stand up to her (especially when compared with the guys who caved), he's also more of a mystery. She doesn't know what makes him tick. She's figured out how to play the other guys. Women find mystery attractive.
Again, on the face of it, she would probably agree with you. The facts I'm pointing out are what's lying under the surface.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Actually, it's worse than that. If the US quits supporting Ukraine, Ukraine will be forced to start attacking targets inside Russia, especially civilian targets like heat and electricity, that they so far have been avoiding because it would cause a loss of Western support.
Perun channel recently did a presentation that indicates a large part of Putin being able to continue is the lack of effect or cost of the war on most Russian's everyday lives. If Ukraine was able to place a cost on the war for ordinary Russians (say, not having heat or electricity during winter) then the tacit support for Putin's war could dry up and leave Putin with larger concerns at home.
Remember, if Western aid stops, Ukraine ends up in a desperate fight for survival alone and means they'll have lost the reason to take the high road and will need to take whatever action they see necessary to ensure their survival.
Ironically, the US halting military aid to Ukraine could actually cause the as yet merely threatened nuclear escalation.
Putin and his upper echelon already believe this is a war between Russia and the United States or NATO and that we are (somehow) forcing Ukraine to fight when Ukraine really just wants to give up and be part of Russia.
If US aid dries up and Ukraine is forced to start attacking infrastructure inside Russia in order to place a cost on the war for average Russians and try to cause backlash against Putin inside Russia, Russia will view these attacks as COMING FROM (or at the instruction of THE UNITED STATES.
Juila ioffe, an expert on Russia has suggested that it would be better if Russians were purple. As it is they look like us, European (most Americans are of European descent) but they absolutely don't think like us. Because they look similar, it's easy to forget that they very much aren't similar.
So, with that in mind, our purple Russians will interpret the consequences of US halting aid to Ukraine as escalation by the United States and an attack by the United States directly on Russia proper.
So, by halting aid to Ukraine, the United States will both lose any influence over Ukraine's war activities AND be escalating the war in the mind of Russia's leaders.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Regarding casualties, it could get murky for Ukraine. If their wounded are not severely wounded but counted as a casualty, they return to the fight and may end up wounded again, but not severely, counted as a casualty again and returned to the fight again. You'd need to do really deep look into records to determine the level of wounded but returned to the fight.
So, you could have 500,000 wounded but only 300,000 people involved in that number of wounded.
This concept wouldn't apply as much to Russia because Russia puts much less priority on troop welfare, survival, battlefield triage, and casualty evacuation.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I would like congress to propose a law that restricts freedom of speach to 21+.
In fact, if we pass a law that life liberty and pursuit of happiness only applies to people over 21 then the problem of school shootings solves itself by denying those basic Rights to young people also.
Once we allow encroachment on basic Rights, we may as well tear up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and just deny all people all Rights because that is the destination we're setting a course for.
Already police forces in America are allowed to act like occupying British soldiers, with the citizens responsible to obey them but the police not legally responsible to protect the citizens.
That's the reason why protecting the 2nd Amendment Right is important. Once we start giving ground on one Right, we are giving ground on all our Rights and putting more power in the hands of government and its wealthy puppet masters and chipping away at the foundation of America.
Guns aren't the cause of gun violence. It's the socioeconomic, economic mobility, and mental health issues that are levied upon the majority by the wealthy and powerful few. Those are the exact same people who then suggest us giving up basic Rights is the solution.
Look at the bigger picture and look more than the step just in front of you.
Why is Matthew McConaughey not asking for more resources for mental health, community outreach and engagement (so people don't become dissociated and lost in society, like the Uvalde shooter), and more resources for education and ensuring children are fed?
Ask for THOSE things, Matty, and you solve the problem instead of put a bandaid on it that just reduces the strength of everyone's Rights.
10
-
10
-
10
-
Paul may be an excellent NCO and small unit leader. However, he's a goob when it comes to the bigger picture. Bakhmut wasn't ever planned as a counterattack location for Ukraine. It only became valuable when Russia decided they were cool with allowing Ukraine, from the defensive, to attrit Russian soldiers and supplies as Russia kept spamming attacks in.
When the Ukrainian offensive happens, it likely won't be near Bakhmut. Ukraine wants to attack where Russia isn't expecting it or might be expecting but doesn't have bolstered with experienced Wagner troops and Russian VDV that are in Bakhmut area.
Plus, it's mind boggling that Paul keeps asking "wHeRe da countermatak?!" when it's mud season. Perun Channel humorously quipped in a recent vid, "insert required 'mud season in Ukraine vid clip'".
If Ukraine goes on the offensive when fields and unpaved roads are mud, Ukraine would be making the exact same mistake Russia did last year. Russia expected Ukraine to surrender and invaded during mud season so that they would only have to secure the roads and not worry about Ukrainian mechanized attack from multiple off road vectors.
If Ukraine attacks before they can maneuver off road, they are stuck to roads which are predictable and easy to mine or ambush (as Russia learned when it couldn't maintain supply lines on roads that Ukraine could ambush).
THEN, after all that, Ukraine isn't the US military. In Paul's experience, his military had all its pieces available at the start of the game, as an analogy. Ukraine did not start with all its pieces on the board and is currently awaiting some games changing hardware, particularly the IFV (infantry fighting vehicles) Bradley and Warrior.
Besides waiting for them to arrive with trained troops and be formed into units, what good would it do Ukraine to make the first mission of a Bradley, Challenger, or Leopard be: get stuck in the mud and practice retrieval ops.
IDK. Maybe Paul could Google "Ukraine mud" and figure out why Ukraine hasn't gone on offense yet or understand that Ukraine probably won't be doing so in Bakhmut. It's folly to let your enemy decide where to fight. That's another mistake Russia keeps failing to learn.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
These Ukranians remind me of Stephen Mader, an Afghanistan vet who was fired by a podunk police department for not shooting a black suspect that was trying to commit suicide by cop and waving what turned out to be an empty gun in the air. (The suspect's requested death was granted when 2 other occi-fers showed up and gunned him down.)
Mader said that his time in Afghanistan, where a checkpoint job skill was determining who was trying to kill him (or other friendlies) and who wasn't, allowed him to determine the suspect wasn't actually an imminent danger, pointing the pistol in the air, and he was trying to talk him down.
I'm sure Paul has similar experiences of having to determine if locals had bad intent or there was imminent danger or not.
This guy was lucky only in the sense that he's actually going to get some food, medical treatment, and not die from hypothermia. The Ukrainians didn't shoot him because he wasn't really a threat. I'm hoping there was a drone or other observation unit that was able to determine he was alone and not a distraction.
I'm in agreement with other people that this guy's confusion was probably as much to do with being cold and hungry as much as from any alcohol use. It would be great if this guy shows up on that channel that does interviews with the Russian POWs.
It certainly is possible that he was new or unliked and someone in his unit pranked him with the wrong direction to the bread line. Or, he may have gotten out of the trench and thought he walked straight but curved enough from a limp or gate issue to find a way out of the war besides death.
He's definitely a lucky dude. Probably more that he didn't get shot by Russians than the Ukrainians. Perhaps his unit did retreat and they thought he was dead from hypothermia or starvation and just left him. If everyone else is tired, hungry and freezing, they aren't going to want to carry out a corpse. Kicked him, didn't wake up, left him. Leaving the bodies is standard protocol for Russians. Plus, that's an extra paycheck and ration that the commander gets to keep for himself.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Victor_Fedoseev - I have an ethnic Russian friend who fled Donetsk during Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
She still has friends and family in Donbas. She still talks to them. There was no shelling, bombing, or attacking of Donetsk or Luhansk after the Minsk cease fire.
In fact, the only shelling of the Donetsk area at all was done by the Russian proxies as they moved towards Donetsk to drive out the Ukrainian defenders. My friend's grandmother was killed in one of their artillery attacks.
The original "separatists" in Donbas were foreign fighters, criminals and anarchists, that Russia sent in by bus and truck backed up by Russian special forces "advisors" that taught them how to use captured equipment and called in Russian helicopter strikes to prevent Ukrainian counterattack.
I'm not saying you should believe me. I'm saying you should talk to normal people in Donbas and Luhansk to get REAL information instead of blindly believing Putin's propaganda.
If you are unable or unwilling to communicate with people in Donbas, let's do some simple math.
During the recent continuation of the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, within 8 days of indiscriminate artillery attacks on Ukrainian cities that Russia was unable to break through their defenses, the cites or suburbs of them have been leveled, destroyed.
If Ukraine had been shelling Donbas for EIGHT YEARS, there would be no buildings left standing in the region and no people either because they would have no homes or places to work.
Clearly people haven't been shelled in Donbas because the buildings are still up, except for those that are still in ruins after the "separatist" artillery attacks as they drove out the Ukrainian defenders in 2014.
Now, if you're bad at math and can't compare the destruction of Russian artillery attacks over 8 days on Ukrainian cities with your alleged 8 YEARS of Ukraine attacks on Donbas, let's look at Putin's record of honesty to see if you should believe what he tells you.
Putin said he wouldn't invade Georgia.
Putin invades Georgia.
Putin said he wouldn't invade Ukraine.
Putin invades Ukraine.
Putin says he's just sending troops into the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions to keep the peace and protect Russian Ukrainians.
Putin sends invasion forces into Ukraine from Belarus in the north, from Crimea in the south and troops move out of Donbas to invade Ukraine in the east.
If your eyes are open and you're not a sheep, it's easy to see that what Putin says is opposite of the truth. If Putin says there has been shelling of Donbas by Ukraine, then his other lies indicate that he's lying about that also.
Think for yourself. Talk to people in Donbas to get real information. Look at all of Putin's other lies.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
If Ukraine had received the artillery ammo, Storm Shadow, and ATACMS missiles last year, before the winter, Ukraine could've kept fire up on the Zaporizhia front and its supply lines. That would've made it more difficult and costly for Russia to attempt building the significant defenses and, especially, minefields that it was able to when they had a 6 month break from fighting.
Since Russia is out of its depth and Ukraine has consistently fought smarter and done more with less, the war may well be over now because Crimea would be made untenable already.
The West dragging this conflict out because we're afraid to...modernize our arsenals by loaning Ukraine older equipment and weapons?
Meanwhile, this conflict only exists because the US and UK failed to do anything to uphold our responsibility under the Budapest Memorandum to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity in 2014 when Russia first invaded as a test of our will.
Again, West causing the problem by brokering the shady deal to get Ukraine to give up its nuclear deterrent, reneging on our responsibility in the agreement, and then not supplying the right weapons fast enough so that Ukraine can at least fight this Russian invasion of Europe on their own.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
It's interesting that you mentioned cars twice. It's something I try to remind people about on the rare occurance of a shooting involving youths. VEHICLES are one of the leading causes of accidental deaths among people under 18 and claim far more teen lives than firearms. The school shooting is certainly unfortunate, unnecessary, and sad. However, EVERY DAY in the USA about 8 teens become fatalities in vehicle incidents. Every. Day. Virtually none of this makes the news because it's so common, it's not sensational.
Vehicle ownership and operation isn't even a Constitutional Right yet we never hear anyone asking for more car control over who's able to own and drive one or what sort of training and proficiency tests there ought to be.
Most people recognize a firearm as a weapon. Most people view a car as a toy or simple tool for getting from place to place.
Vehicles are 4,000+ lbs guided missiles that are involved in more teen deaths every year than firearms.
There are TWO simple rules for safely operating this weapon system.
1, Don't hit stuff
2, Do everything possible to prevent stuff hitting you
Yet, most people operating these weapons don't even realize they're wielding a potentially deadly weapon, don't know the 2 rules of safe driving, and don't OBEY the 2 simple rules of safe driving because they don't realize they're operating a weapon.
Again, VEHICLES are involved in an average of 8 teenage fatalities EVERY DAY in just the USA. Vehicle ownership and operation isn't a Constitutional Right and if we're SERIOUS about saving lives (every year vehicles are involved in as many deaths as firearms, excluding self elimination, at about 30,000 with another 100,000 injuries in the US across all ages), especially young lives, we OUGHT to be talking about stricter regulations on who can own a vehicle, what type of extensive training ought to be required, what kind of proficiency needs to be demonstrated (such as resisting the urge to multi task while driving), and ensuring all qualified drivers are shown the GRAPHIC consequences of failing to follow the 2 simple rules of safe driving. Most "accidents" are in fact "collisions" and not accidents because an ignorant or belligerent driver did something other than driving safely while behind the wheel.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
5:28 "Successful" women don't realize that men aren't interested in how well she can do her job. We're interested in how well she can make a sandwich.
Those women that she's competing with who she says, "have nothing going on" are actually more attractive because they have time and energy to be an attentive partner.
Tomi admits that she's bought into the feminist lie that women can do anything with no trade-off.
Most women cannot be happy when they are in a masculine frame. Thank or decry evolution for that.
Trying to be alpha, "working hard and being successful... competing with men in the workplace", puts a woman in a masculine frame.
Sure, she's successful and accomplished at work. But her caveman brain wants emotional and family accomplishment. Evolution.
Meanwhile, masculine men want a feminine woman. Evolution.
18:10 red pill doesn't need to leave a guy angry or empty. Red pill is simply understanding "the desert of the real", seeing how women really are, beyond the beta male propaganda prevelant in all forms of media and from single moms trying to rear boys.
Once a guy has taken the red pill, if he chooses to also learn how to build attraction and what the rules of the game actually are, then he can have more positive interactions with women by turning the rules around on them.
Or, he can decide that he just isn't interested in playing games at all.
Either way it puts the man in charge of his own destiny which satisfies his caveman brain desire to be in a masculine frame.
If a guy is feeling angry or empty he needs to look inside himself, just as you suggest Tomi needs to look inside herself for her entitlement, anger, and emptiness issues.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Dude. You're still missing or ignoring the only actually important advice. Your looks (face or fashion) matter much less than you've allowed people to convince you.
You can gain benefits to your quality of life by learning how to change your mindset, heal your past emotional hurts, and take action to develop yourself for a positive future.
Your past is not equal to nor does it determine your future.
All this "advice" that you debunk is regarding appearance. It's largely meaningless.
I'm a fit, attractive guy. But, I'm also an introvert. I've never put effort into learning how to handle social situations. I have the appearance of a "bad boy" and am attractive. So, according to your rules, I should be just fine regardless of my social skills.
The truth is far from it. My appearance opens doors. Once that door is opened, my lack of social skills and proper understanding of business or romantic interpersonal relationships would inevitably lead me to slam the door shut in my own face.
At 42, I run my own small business and recently had a setback that rocked my entire foundation, a real cosmic kick in the nuts. After getting past nearly being in shock for a couple weeks, I spent the next few months examining every aspect of my life while my business was shut down (while I was clawing together capital to fix equipment that failed).
This led me into learning more about relationships, how a man needs to be I order to actually be a MAN (pro tip: single moms raising boys with no other masculine role models is fucking up the natural order of human evolutionary society).
I have changed very little about my appearance. I have started working out regularly, but the impact in such a short time has been more mental than physical (endorphins are produced immediately, while noticeable fat loss or muscle gain takes considerably longer).
With just changing the inside of my mind, I've had a huge difference in the way people react to me. Girls are coming up and initiating contact with me. I look the same and wear the same clothes as I did a few months ago. But I look different. How can that be if I my appearance hasn't changed??
People treat you the way you allow and invite them to. Regardless of looks, people respond, often unconsciously, to non verbal communication. I expect that I'm going to have positive interactions with people and I do, now.
You could be as attractive, physically, as me and it wouldn't do you a bit of good. Looks would be the same crutch for you that they were for me. You'll have chances offered to you and then you'll screw it up because what's most important is what's in your head. And That is something you aren't trying to fix. And you do need to fix it, based on how you speak of events.
Here's an honest tip that that will help you with this new lady friend of yours: tell her, "no". "No" is one of the sexiest things a guy can say to girl. And, do NOT change anything about you that she may suggest. But, you want to please her! Don't. She does not want you to do anything she suggests "to please her". She wants you to be man enough to tell her "No" (politely). She wants you to prove to her that you are comfortable being you and that you are not going to change for her.
It's counterintuitive. I know. You're a nice guy. I am too. But, regardless of how backwards it sounds, what I said is exactly correct. And, I tell you this because I genuinely hope you can find success attracting (with your personality and masculinity, not with looks) and keeping attracted a girl who is a good fit for you.
The truth is that you're using "ugly" as a cop out, excuse, to not get out there and actually live life. That tells me that you don't know How to get out there and live life. I was also somewhat clueless for most of my life. The world looks totally different once you start pulling the wool away from your eyes!
Changing what's in your mind is something you can do at home, virtually for free, and see the effects in a fairly short amount of time, depending on how much effort you put into learning how to heal your past hurts, adjusting your self evaluation and future outlook, and learning how to have (how to induce) positive social interactions.
8
-
8
-
@thatdamncrow9197 - You're partly correct. However, being partly correct is also being partly wrong.
Look into the criminal justice system. It's the job of the prosecutor to efficiently use tax payer money to decide which cases are actually prosecutable with a high likelihood of conviction.
This is important distinction to what you implied, to prosecute anyone, because if there is not a conviction, that effort is a waste of taxpayer money and a burden on the court schedule (along with opening up the municipality to lawsuits for defamation).
In the Rittenhouse case, the prosecutor, assistant district attorney Binger, either knew that Rittenhouse was not prosecutable with a high likelihood of conviction (because he was innocent of the charges that Binger levied), Binger is totally incompetent, or Binger was using his role as ADA to pursue his own SJW agenda on the taxpayers dime.
Most arrests do not result in a prosecution. Binger knew their was no case against Rittenhouse AND Binger failed to seek arrests for and prosecute the actual criminals who perpetrated the attack against Rittenhouse.
Because Binger used the 2 living attackers as prosecution witnesses against a man that Binger knew war innocent of what he'd charged him with, it's obvious that of the 2 possibilities I suggest above, Binger is not completely incompetent but was actively pursuing his own SJW agenda and merely appearing completely incompetent in the process.
It is not the job of a prosecutor to prosecute people who they know are innocent, where they know there is insufficient evidence for a conviction, where they know there were police procedure violations, etc.
If your statement is true that it's the prosecutor's job to file charges and prosecute (all) cases, why did Binger not seek the arrest of and then charge the men who attacked Kyle? To this day, Kyle's assailants have not been arrested, prosecuted, or tried.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
As the vid points out in the title, it's impossible for a 20 year dictator to get accurate, good advice. He's going to be surrounded by sycophants and yes-men.
Putin grossly underestimated the Ukraine will to fight and actual capabilities.
The Russian military is like the German Luftwaffe of WWII towards the latter part of the war. They had a few very good, well trained pilots and many virtually untrained pilots.
The former is akin to the Russian special forces, advance elements, and recon/saboteurs who were air dropped in or rapidly advanced. The latter is akin to the regular Russian conscripted army.
The initial invasion was supposed to have the sir dropped elements occupy key areas (like the military airfield near Kiev) and rapidly secure forward positions while the advance mechanized elements secured the supply line routes meeting up with the forward units to allow the fuel, ammo, and reinforcements to drive up and bolster the initial invasion forces.
Needless to say, that didn't happen. The initial special forces troops were unable to hold their objectives without the mechanized troops arriving to support and all that soft equipment on the road was unable to move forward with the first elements bogged down fighting the Ukrainian defenders or outright out of fuel.
Putin was picturing Iraq 1 and had found himself with an Afghanistan, where missiles are knocking out his resupply and attack aircraft behind the front line and his armor and mechanized units on the front line and even women and children are making molotovs like it was a craft fair and civilians taking up arms to defend themselves in addition to the active military and actual reservists with some training stalling his confused, poorly trained, tired, hungry, thirsty conscripts.
Putin, has driven himself into a coffin.
Perhaps he is suffering from mental illness and not just his normal narcissistic, egotistical hubris. Hopefully one of his advisors will recognize this, that he's in the wrong and Putin had Hobe mad, and push Putin down the stairs before Putin continues his path of escalation towards nukes.
Putin painted himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He had to invade Ukraine, again (2014 was also an invasion), because he left no way to de-escalate without losing face.
Now that he's turning his rhetoric towards nuclear weapons, it's very serious because he could again paint himself in a corner where the only action he perceives as viable, to not lose face, is to attack.
The Russian people, and the world, should be very concerned about this unstable megalomaniac. Obviously, if Putin uses nukes, the Russian people will get real crispy, real fast too. Russians need to silence and remove Putin before his rhetoric actually comes true as a "self filling prophecy" and he does elicit a war with the West.
War with Russia is not something anyone in the west wants. Most people either don't think about Russia at all or simply wish Russia had a reasonable leadership so that we could trade with them and exchange culturally.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
This is similar to what happened in Texas a couple years ago when a strong winter cold period increased electricity consumption (as people turned up heating) beyond what power company had prepared for. There was so much draw on the equipment that power had to be cut in order to avoid damaging the power generation equipment.
Once the emergency blackouts (followed layer by rolling blackouts) began to save the power equipment, water pumping stations lost power. At that point, with water not flowing and hard freeze temperatures, the pipes bursts as water began to freeze. So, people were without electricity for heat and without water.
Here, we don't wave radiator heating systems, but they're radiators bursting is the same as our water mains bursting.
Except, it's very rarely thst cold in Texas. Our problem was due to the electricity company not planning enough fuel supply at the generating stations. Then, once the storm hit, more fuel couldn't be transported in.
Whatever Russia's current electricity generating issues are, all those complaining Russians should be tried for treason. If they are not building military equipment in a factory or fighting on the front "to save Russia from invasion", then they are not a necessary part of the society because they aren't doing their patriotic duty to support their "benevolent" czar.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5:37 the SU-34 have been a big issue because they are "bombing" with long range cruise missiles, including the "hypersonic" Kinzal which Russia uses to destroy "tactical apartment buildings", and also engaging Ukrainian jets with the long range R-37 missile (150+ km range) whenever Russian AWACS aircraft or ground based radar spot Ukrainian jets in the air.
Ukraine has no answer to R-37 (indeed, only the British Meteor missile and the newest prototype variant of the US AIM-120 have a similar engagement range while both western missiles are designed to hit fighters whereas the R37 was designed to hit the B-52 bomber).
So, besides the proliferation of ground based air defenses, Russian Mig 31 and Su 34 fighters lobbing R-37 at Ukranian jets will force them to drop their mission to evade the missiles.
Besides the patriot theory, this attack sounds like something a captured Pantsir system might do. That system, like the Patriot can tie on several launch vehicles and they can all target off each other's radar. These are shorter range systems but if Ukraine did capture some they could've possibly moved a vehicle to the front line.
Also, depending on where the incident took place (hard to tell squinting at the map on my phone), Ukraine could've moved some of Avenger systems (HMMV with a Stinger launcher box) to the far side of the river. These systems are cheap and not a huge loss if something happened to them on the far side of the river. However, that is a very range system. Then again, Ukraine has used HMMV to assault fortified positions as well as their operatives working behind enemy lines and inside Russia.
Maybe operatives were behind Russian lines with stingers?
It seems like Ukraine would've had to throw several things at them to get 3.
Look up the video of an F-16 pilot dodging 6 Iraqi SAMS in Desert Storm.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@dmorwell - 0:20 She opens with blaming the parents for not knowing all of the things that she then goes into detail about, which no parent would know unless they are a doctor, pharmacist, or part of the organization that laid out the child vaccine protocol.
An example of not blaming the parents would be to have opened without the line about parents needing to verify what vaccine was being given.
It might sound like simple "common sense" to verify something like this. However, unless the parent is medically trained, familiar with the protocols, and able to examine, read the technical jargon on the label, and identify the vial being used, it's simply not possible to to verify what is being administered.
Had any of the parents in this situation tried to verify the person administering the shot would've said, "yes it's all fine."
If the parents were aware that there was a difference in packaging of the child vaccine and tried to physically examine the vial and needle, they would've been told, "please don't touch that."
This lady was blaming parents by saying that they should do something which isn't possible to avoid a situation like this.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
4:35 re, why we keep making the same mistakes (burying our head in the sand during WWI and WWII until action was unavoidable instead of acting earlier and being able to prevent the situation from worsening...
Even if history is recorded, society only has the memory of about 60 to 80 years or 1 generation. After that history and lessons learned from it are forgotten.
This is true both ways. Putin forgot how things worked out for the last fascist dictator who invaded European neighbors.
The West, especially the United States, has forgotten what happened when nothing was done as that dictator began invading Europe. We kept hearing, "we don't want to give too much aid as it might cause Russia to escalate."
Utter nonsense. Russia had no room escalate because they were 100% in at day 3 of the 2022 invasion. Yet, the West, completely forgetting how appeasement and diplomacy don't work with an aggressive dictator bent on building an empire.
Worse, Trump aka "Mr Win at Any Cost" is so desperate for personal power that he's willing to throw America under the bus to get it and do things that align with the goals of an enemy the USA and the democratic, free world.
Because society doesn't remember how trying to avoid a world crisis didn't work, people begin parroting the nonsense coming out of Trump led Republican Party. And, Trump isn't even an elected official! It's nuts.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@iwatcher69 - Russia's newest equipment and best troops are already in Ukraine.
You can see T-90 tanks and BMP 3 IFV.
The fact of the Russian army is that it's much like the German Luftwaffe near the end of WWII. They have a few very well trained and equipped troops and then the bulk of the army is poorly trained conscripts.
Plus, you have to remember that Russia must hold back its very best troops and equipment at home to protect against a counterattack. However unlikely that is, it must be planned for at a strategic level.
What we're seeing in Ukraine is the best that Russia can do. That's why they've taken to indiscriminately shelling areas that they can't break through with troops and vehicles.
What you also need to realize is that this is the first time that we're seeing a modern armored and mechanized war. Russia isn't able to to control the skies because of the proliferation of man portable anti air missiles. Likewise, they aren't able to just push through with armor and mechanized units because of anti tank missiles, drone strikes, and defensive tank and artillery fire.
The Russians didn't meet such modern resistance in Georgia or Syria. The US didn't see such modern resistance in Afghanistan or Iraq 1 or 2.
Plus, unlike the the US in the Middle East, Russia can't maneuver off road in Ukraine due to the soil and damp time of year after winter freeze and snow melt.
This is a double edged sword for Russia. On the upside, Russia doesn't have to worry about cross country counter attacks because Ukraine can't drive off road either AND, more importantly, Russia only has to secure the roads. As Russia moves into Ukraine, it's not securing the entire region, it's merely controlling the roads. The advantage is that it requires less troops to provide security over a roadway than a region. Every kilometer Russian troops move into Ukraine, the Russian force strength thins out as troops have to be left behind to provide security and try to prevent ambush and counterattack.
The downside is that Ukraine knows exactly where Russia will be going and how they'll be heading there. That makes it much easier to set up defensive positions and ambushes as Russia tries to move in.
The fact that Putin selected THIS time of year to accept the trade offs in pros and cons tells us that he doesn't have enough troops to secure the entire regions that they are try to push through. This makes sense. Ukraine is large. Troops left behind to provide security can't help the frontline fight.
Again, regarding size, Russia is also huge. Russia may have a large army, but they can't just send all their troops into Ukraine. From a strategic level, that would be foolish to expose all of Russia to counterattack and leave the dictator exposed without an army to quell potential unrest.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
We also don't make most basic medicines like ibuprofen and aspirin.
We can't feed many of our people, including children (that rely on school for their one meal of the day).
We can't house many people, again, including children and veterans with mental illness from brain trauma.
We can't provide adequate medical care for many working people who's employers won't allow them to work enough weekly hours to qualify for health insurance and for small business owners who either choose a luxury like insurance or use that expensive premium to pay employees or keep equipment working.
America is a great country. However, it isn't perfect. A very wealthy person isn't happy because they don't have enough.
A working person is offered the illusion or hope of upward mobility, but these people getting more is in conflict with the wealthy getting their more.
So, working people in America are controlled by the illusion of a chance to move up the socioeconomic ladder. These non-wealthy people are never happy because they work and strive for a goal line that the wealthy don't allow them to reach.
For the few working people who do parlay hard work, luck, and timing into a transition to wealthy are now never happy because of point one, they want more.
A society focused on consuming has no "enough".
America is a great country, but it's not perfect.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Prof, on your chart, what ISN'T shown in the NATO Ukraine relations is that after the fall of the Soviet Union, while NATO was allowing former Soviet states to seek NATO membership, this was somewhat at Ukraine's expense.
NATO was unofficially telling Russia that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO and Russia would maintain their "ukraine" (literally, "frontier") between NATO and RUSSIA. This was an unofficial attempt at appeasement "we'll take these, but leave you that" (and in the early 90s, NATO might not have known what to make of the large formerly Soviet republic).
Meanwhile, NATO was telling Ukraine, unofficially of course, that Ukraine would "someday" be allowed to join NATO.
So, NATO policy has been F'd up towards Ukraine from the get go. Fast forward and Ukraine is now FIGHTING NATO'S WAR to keep Russia out of Europe.
EVERYONE, except Putin, knows that Ukraine can't be allowed to be gobbled up by Russia amid its "we'll nuke you" threat fueled terrorism a la imperialism.
Ukraine is fighting the war NATO was designed for and NATO continues its tradition of wishy washy, back stabby policy toward Ukraine while Ukrainians (and European and other Western volunteers) are dying to protect NATO and Europe from the conflict.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Related: women require drama. If YOU create the drama, it satisfies her craving for it and YOU get to control the what, when, where of it.
If you don't create some drama, SHE will. It's simply in her nature. Letting her do it will leave you with a headache or heartache.
It's perfectly OK to upset your girl or make her cry now and then. Obviously, don't be a dick all the time. Women thrive on emotional stimulation. Anger, sadness, etc aren't good, happy emotions but they are still emotions.
Yes, it's a stupid game but a simple one that benefits you, her, and the relationship.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
11:19 PLEASE, anyone who hears a friend or relative mention aid "given" to Ukraine, correct them by reminding them that everything we're "giving" to Ukraine is a loan, just as aid to Britain was during WWII.
The United States isn't "giving" Ukraine anything anymore than a bank "gives" a mortgage or car loan. Most people don't refer to a mortgage or car loan as a "gift".
The "gift" is that a person has been afforded the opportunity to purchase a home or car with future repayment. Ukraine is being afforded the opportunity to purchase their independence from a neighbor who continually tries to move into their house.
As a bonus, Ukraine, not the United States, is spending BLOOD to defeat an enemy of the United States. Like it or not, Russia has remained an enemy of the United States since the Soviet Union lost the Cold War.
US aid to Ukraine, if nothing else, is buying the military and economical weakening of an enemy of the United States, NATO, and Europe with ZERO cost in American lives while actively increasing growth in the US defense industry jobs program.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
11:20 re, region for an effective mechanized assault
That area south of Zaporizhia is where the next main attack will be, pushing south to Melitopal to cut off Crimea and the Russian troops that earlier fled from Kherson. Putin absolutely wants to keep Crimea, it has the Black Sea naval bases and ports that don't freeze in winter.
Russia will be faced with another dilemma, do they reinforce and try to defend actual prize, Crimea, or continue messing around in Donbas which Russia isn't really interested in. If they continue fighting in Donbas to "atrit the Ukrainians" or whatever #RussianLogic they're using, they leave Crimea vulnerable. If they move forces from Donbas to the area south of Zaporizhia ahead of a Ukrainian offensive, while they still control that route from east to west, they make Donetsk and Luhansk vulnerable.
The dilemma will be which does Russia want to lose first, Donbas or Crimea, and which does it want to lose second. Adding solid mechanized assault capability, which the BMP simply hasn't provided to either side, will be a game changer.
6
-
@oinka720 yes, militantly.
Previously, there was such a thing as using experience to not do stupid things. Now, even with the phone (aka GPS, map, notepad, etc) semi permanently attached to the dash, the driver facing camera (which even Canada had the good sense to ban) has ai that will see a driver touch the phone, take hands off wheel, look away from the road, I've heard Amazon's even counts blink rate and yawns.
Even the law allows answering or making a phone call with 1 button press. That will get a driver written up and on the path to termination.
I was advised to simply never touch the phone at all when in the driver's seat. When I submitted an ISO 9001 procedure for improvement suggestion and recommend management state exactly when we are able to do things like look at the map, set GPS, other trip planning (which is usually done in the driver's seat), they gave no response. Of course. They want to take the stance that drivers should know how to do those things, but then don't like how drivers do those things as a normal, safe part of the job.
In trucking, the absolutely most dangerous thing a driver can do is make a right lane change (because it's very easy for cars to hide on that side). Ironically my "safety" focused company hasn't thought it cost effective to install a camera with visibility down that entire blind spot.
It's a matter of small people with bigger power using that power to bully and harras people...because they can and it gives them a sense of control over their lives (typical reason why people abuse power).
Bit of a rant thrown in with explanation, but it's frustrating to see a complany that I've been part of for 16 years turned into something that will be trash as they will eventually be left with only the worst drivers to choose from, people who will put up with their ridiculous, draconian, and poorly thought out policies.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
8:19 Stop. Most people, especially the troops on the front (for understandable reasons), don't understand WHY Syrskyi defended Bakhmut the way he did.
TLDR, failures or bad decisions by Zaluzhny, the overall commander, (who is, ironically, well liked by troops) led to Syrskyi having to hold Bakhmut and, unfortunately, may have led to needing to hold Avdiivka longer than ideal while defenses further back are constructed long after they should've been (these are Zaluzhny failings, not Sysrki failings as he's playing the hand Zaluzhny dealt him).
Read on for a deeper dive:
Where did Syrskyi earn that nickname, "the butcher"? The defense of Kyiv? The defense of Bakhmut?
Unfortunately, war isn't summer camp. Troops are going to be wounded and killed. The other option is to not fight and allow Russia to simply exterminate or sterilize any men of fighting or child making age.
Both the defense of Kyiv and Bakhmut were critical. If Kyiv had fallen, game over.
Bakhmut was initially only worthwhile as a place to grind down Russian troops as they crossed open areas. Even with a good attrition ratio, troops would still be lost.
As Ukraine began developing the southern offensive, Bakhmut actually gained strategic value. Keeping Russian troops engaged near Bakhmut kept them from being redeployed to the Zaporizhia area.
That was doubly beneficial and doubly difficult for the Bakhmut defenders since the Wagner troops were the most brutal and most capable that Russia had AND Russia hadn't yet run into their artillery ammo shortages.
Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that such vigorous defense of Bakhmut wasn't productive because the southern offensive failed for reasons that wouldn't be apparent until it began.
The primary 3 reasons for that failure was the failure of the Western advisors to realize that NATO wouldn't even attempt such an offensive without air superiority (to be able to destroy the artillery protecting the minefields), Ukraine's failure to realize that the Western advisors were full of poop and out of their depth and shouldn't be listened to, and the West's failure to provide Ukraine with sufficient type and quantity of long range fires (cruise missiles) and specialty equipment (mine clearing vehicles, mobile front line air defense vehicles, aircraft) BEFORE THE START of the offensive such to make the offensive possible with the advice the Western advisors were pushing on Ukraine.
In hindsight we know all that. Even now, such strategic concerns might not be known or understood by the troops who think Syrskyi "kept feeding men into the grinder" merely because he didn't care about the men or the losses.
More correct to say is that Syrskyi did so because he was ordered to buy time for the staging of the southern offensive.
In that case, Syrskyi isn't "the butcher". Rather, the Western advisors pushing bad advice on Ukraine, the Western counties who failed to provide sufficient equipment for the defense of Europe (through defeating Russia in Ukraine) and the Ukrainian leadership and commander in chief failing to realize the shortcomings of Western advice without air superiority that all Western strategy depends on are the ACTUAL butchers that fed men into the grinder.
Syrskyi is just the poor bast@rd scapegoat who got stuck with the ugly but necessary job of sending those unfortunate men to their deaths in order to allow success of the larger strategic goals (which, again, we NOW, after the fact, know was a bad trade).
And, the guys on the frontline or in units that are being reconstituted after heavy losses won't know about any of that because their concerns are much more personal and local (their safety, safety of the guy next to them, and will they make it home).
In this regard, Syrskyi being forced to send those men to their deaths for a failed offensive and bad strategic decisions by the prior commander in chief put him in an excellent place to avoid wasting lives on poorly thought strategic goals where previously he was only in a position to carry out the bad orders he was given.
As much as the men love Zaluzhny, HE was the one who sent them into the grinder by ordering Syrskyi to hold Bakhmut to allow the failed southern offensive which Zaluzhny was also responsible for.
The extra irony is that if Sysrki had been "motherly" about his troops welfare compared to command decisions, the troops would like him even less because they wouldn't respect him and would think he didn't have the stomach to make the tough command decision required of a general during war.
It's normal Western military leadership for higher echalon commanders to not be "buddies" with subordinates. This can give the appearance to the men that the commander is uncaring and aloof. At times, this may be true, but for the most part, being human, these people will care about the troops they're sending to their deaths and these decisions will weigh on them.
At the end of the day, Syrskyi has to live the fact that he sent troops to die for the failed southern offensive and have the maturity and patience to be called "the butcher" while the man actually responsible for extra deaths at Bakhmut, Zaluzhny for ordering it be held and for signing off on the poorly thought out southern offensive, is regarded as well liked by the troops.
This reminds me of an AMA or viewer mail episode from Ryan McBeth, for those familiar with his channel. He explained that he WASN'T a good leader because he wanted people to like him and didn't want to give orders that he knew men wouldn't like (or that would be dangerous in wartime).
While the troops might not think so now, Syrskyi's understanding of Russian thinking combined with modern training plus his experience with having to send men to their deaths needlessly because of poor strategy from higher command put him in a very good place to be an effective overall commander for Ukraine.
Hopefully, you made it through that long comment to have greater understanding of the bigger picture
5
-
5
-
5
-
@redsaaryn3832 - You misunderstand how rent works. With steam, you're not renting anything. You are literally buying the license. The license, that you bought, allows access to the licensed software for as long as your subscription account is in good standing.
There are other factors that can limit a game titles usefulness, such as if it's an online game and the publisher's servers are eventually taken down or if a publisher continues to update the title to be compatible with newer hardware or OS. But, that kind of thing goes back to what I was saying about the publisher limiting the lifespan of the license, not Steam (unless Valve was the publisher, but even then it's no different than any other publisher which will eventually stop supporting software).
As a practical matter, if you're dealing with an offline title, you can use it as long as your hardware and operating system will run it. I have an older offline title that I can launch directly from the .exe file, without even having to use Steam in offline mode (handy time waster when traveling in an area with bad net).
If Steam is renting you games, it would be like paying rent once to move into an apartment and then staying as long as you want, provided you don't get the cops called on you for causing trouble and as long as the building is standing and not condemned. That would be an amazing deal.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Star Citizen won't have a subscription fee to play when live. While some packages can cost thousands of dollars, the average contribution is under $100. A subscription service game with $15 per month fee would have players spending $180 per year. The funding model and average contribution isn't at all outrageous. It is different.
CIG has around 500 employees. $30 mil per year averages $60k each. Figure in higher salary for management and lower for rank and file. 30 mil doesn't sound unreasonable.
CIG didn't have a company OR workable engine at the time of project start. Further, they didn't know what their budget was. So, of course there were inefficiencies. Roberts said that in Hindsight, building their own engine from the ground up would have been cheaper and ultimately saved a lot of time.
When you don't know what your budget is, which CIG didn't at the start, of course there are going to be changes in plan.
Another issue that CR ran into with trying to build a development company was weeding out employees who would take a stance of "can't be done". If someone tells their boss, "that can't be done", that person is then in the position where they either do the impossible thing and prove themselves wrong (it's against human nature to want to be wrong) or to sabotage their own work to prove themselves right.
Regarding funding, generating concept ships is relatively quick and very cost efficient.
Further, Squadron 42, the single player version, should generate income once it's released. At that point, funding isn't donations only.
I log in every 6 months or so to to check on progress and progress is noticeable. I also keep tabs on the development of features. Following this also makes obvious the scale of design and development challenge.
Currently, one of the biggest hurdles is ai programming. They currently have unfilled ai jobs. No "finisher" is going to be able to force finish the game if there aren't the people to do the job.
Have a VC AND "finisher" come in would essentially be slaving development to a standard publisher model of "push that shit out, pinch it off and patch it up later!"
I specifically backed the project because I'm tired of publishers churning out crap. Players have been served so much unfinished, buggy, patch it up later crap that gamers now have some form of Stockholm Syndrome and EXPECT, CRAVE this garbage quality from standard publishers.
You did a decent job of trying to look at the big picture, but still missed some points (average donation compared to normal games with subscription fees, salary expense averaged across the entire workforce, the fact that this experiment is predicated upon NOT having a publisher say, "it's finished...enough, release what you've got", are some).
And, now if you'll excuse me, I need to go play some Battlecruiser 3000 AD.
5
-
5
-
5
-
When it comes to EV, disconnecting the battery won't necessarily prevent a fire if it's something like the battery pack under the car was scraped during loading or handling (soon used EVs will be frequently loaded with forklifts if they aren't running).
The lithium ion battery can set itself off, especially if a little salty air is introduced to the battery while the car is being handled.
The policy on batteries was probably regarding normal ICE cars. I haven't looked under the hood of a newer car in a few years, but I'm sure that on many, it's not just a matter of loosening the cables. They have to take off whatever valence is covering the battery, then re-attach that or secure it sonewhere and repeat the process on the offloading end. In the case of used vehicles, you could have hardware that is difficult to loosen, either from corrosion or being rounded off.
Each stevedore would have to be set up with a toolkit and some training beyond "drive it on, park it, secure it to the deck" or have a special crew follow the stevedores and secure the batteries.
Either way, that's all extra time and expense that someone in management isn't willing to put in THEIR column of the spreadsheet and lose a bonus.
The fire and subsequent insurance claim is in some other column of the spreadsheet. I work with a company, in ta different area of ransportation, and they'll happily lose money where they could save it as long as the columns that are their focus look good. As long as management is motivated by short term profits and the spreadsheet dictates logic, especially if a fire claim doesn't even make it on the normal spreadsheet, this type of thing will continue.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
These guys were stuck on the ship when the cruise stopped and picked up someone who was infected.
The cruises aren't just everyone who gets on stays on and leaves at the same time. The ship may be on a 10 day cruise with 7 port stops and some people stay on the cruise for only part of it or enter at a port stop for part of the remainder.
This guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cruise lines had really poor planning regarding background travel of passengers boarding.
After being stuck on the ship for part of a quarantine period anchored in Japan, the US government sent a plane to retrieve Americans who wanted off the ship (some stayed, oddly).
They were tested and if positive, they were segregated on the airplane. I have my doubts about the efficacy of this mixing of healthy and sick people on board an aircraft with closed ventilation, possibly why some people stayed on the ship (the same ship is in the news again, off California coast, for again having the crew and passengers come up sick on the subsequent cruise).
So, the reason thie first group were on the cruise was because nobody warned them or realized that there was risk. The reason they got on the plane is because it was sent to retrieve them.
Now, the 2nd group of passengers on the same cruise ship are just stupid, considering the stories of the two stranded covid19 cruises were well publicized.
The problem also with relying on testing is that, before symptoms show, "negative" really just means "not positive", which is different than what most people think of as "negative".
The test doesn't detect the VIRUS, it detects ANTIBODIES to the virus. So, a person won't test positive until their immune system begins attacking the virus. We have no idea how long that takes and it will vary from person to person.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Since these vehicles were moving south away from the line of contact, after fighting a Russian push north of the T-90 vs Bradley engagement, the Bradleys may have been low on ammunition (I suspect the first Bradley was out of ammo or had wounded and that's why they kept heading home).
Even if the Bradley wasn't able to penetrate the T-90, as others pointed out, knocked out the optics and left the crew inside blind. Looking at the turret, they don't appear to have redundant old style vision blocks or periscopes.
The Bradley can also mess up the tracks. So, whether it's because the driver can't see, the tank has some drivetrain issue, or track issue, they weren't able to reverse back up the street they were on or turn around successfully.
Near the end of the vid before the tank DUI's into a tree, the Bradley popped off both TOW missiles, but they were a little too close to arm.
I'd guess the conversation in the tank before they bailed out wasn't polite and professional.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
12:50 I have a friend in Ukraine who lived near Donetsk (in the "Donbas" area as it's referred to when talking about the area where Russia was supposedly saving Russian speakers). I've been following the situation since before the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
First, before 2014, when Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and Crimea, there was very little discrimination against Russian speaking people and certainly no persecution or hostility. Discrimination only started AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea were already semi autonomous regions within Ukraine that mostly governed themselves. Also, EVERY oblast in Ukraine, including the "Russian speaking" ones voted to leave Russia at the fall of the Soviet Union.
Residents didn't much care about what Kyiv OR Moscow was doing. When I asked my friend about the about the Maiden protests, she responded trivially, "that's far away and has nothing to do with us".
Second, the original "separatists" weren't Ukrainian. They were foreigners that were transported to Ukraine by Russia (similar to how after the 2022 invasion Russia transported African or Middle Eastern immigrants to the EU border, gave them bicycles, and told them to request refugee status thereby weaponizing refugees). These Russian proxies, criminals and anarchists, were supported by Russian special forces that trained the proxies in basic tactics, use of captured equipment and would call in Russian helicopter gunship support when the inexperienced Ukrainian army tried to respond.
Again, the original "separatists" weren't Ukrainian. Internally, Russia referred to them as "asymmetric fighters". As a bonus, the first president of the "Donetsk People's Republic or DNR, wasn't Ukrainian OR Russian.
Third, my Russian speaking friend (who's grandmother was so Russian she would talk about the good old days when Stalin was in charge), referred to herself as "Russian" prior to 2022. She, one of the people Putin was allegedly trying to save called the Russian proxies "t*rr*rists" as she fled with her school age daughter to a city farther west in Ukraine. The Russian grandmother was eliminated in an artillery attack by the "separatists" as they used the standard Russian tactic of bombard a city before moving into it. She refused to leave her home and was eliminated by the people Putin sent to "save" her.
Fourth, regarding the claims that Russia had to act in 2022 because Ukraine had been shelling Russian occupied Donbas since 2014, recall that Russian artillery has completely leveled several Ukrainian cities to nothing but rubble in mere months. If Ukraine had been shelling the Donbas area for 8 YEARS, there would be no buildings standing and no people living there because no places to live or work! In fact MOST of the artillery damage that is featured in Russian propaganda of eastern Ukraine was actually leftover damage from the Russian proxies as they moved west.
Finally, my formerly "Russian" friend became a "proud Ukrainian" in February 2022 and her and her young daughter were helping make camo netting, candles, and molotovs to support the Ukrainian defenders. She hates Putin and says what he's done makes her angry. Putin stole her Russian heritage by making being Russian bad. She was shocked by the savagery unveiled in the areas that had been occupied by the Russian troops or more rightly shocked that she thought she was Russian before seeing what "Russian" really was.
Fortunately she still has a good enough sense of humor that when her washing machine broke and I told her not to steal her neighbor's machine, she could laugh and remind me that she ISN'T a Russian.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2014 to protect Russian speakers because they weren't being persecuted. By 2022, most discrimination of Russian speakers who fled west was gone because those people had already integrated into new communities. And, as mentioned, since there were still buildings standing, Ukraine hadn't been "shelling Donbas for 8 years".
There was no reason to invade other than because the world did virtually nothing in 2014 and Putin thought the response in 2022 would be similar and Putin could proceed with his territory grab and empire building.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
These kind of updates are very stressful. I have a friend in Ukraine and sometimes communication is spotty because they have rolling blackouts up to 12 hours a day, in 4 hour increments, and when I don't get a message on days with these attacks, I'm anxious that it's because they got blown up instead of just not having internet access when they're awake or phone battery.
Unfortunately, the attacks have become normal enough over 2.5 years that they forget that it's NOT normal as they just shrug it off and continue about daily life. Imagine if 9/11 became normal and after an attack you just went about your business thinking "oh, good. that wasn't my building."
Thanks for mentioning the cities affected early in the vid. Most people or news sources doing updates don't say where the attacks were or bury the info. Unfortunately, their city was mentioned. Talk about dark humor when you have to tell someone, "Hey, I saw there were missile attacks. Let me know if you didn't get blown up."
The daughter usually sleeps through the night attacks but mom gets little sleep once the "booms" start. They recently rescued a feral kitten. I asked how the cat handles it. She said the cat is very brave and doesn't get bothered much by the sound of explosions. The worst thing is the Shaheeds because they are very noisy and can be heard for a while. So, people are just listening to the droning engine hoping it gets quieter, moving away.
Imagine hearing a 9/11 jet circling your neighborhood and wondering if it would end up in your apartment building. What Russia is doing is absolutely the same kind of T...r...r...ism that Al Qaeda did, except on a nearly daily basis in all major cities.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@redsaaryn3832 - You are correct that the Steam EULA (end user license agreement) does state that users are paying for licenses to use a title and actually buying the title.
However, there's nothing about a ticking clock or guaranteed license expiry, my dude.
Did you read a synopsis of the eula somewhere else and somebody else misrepresented things and you just went on passing out that incorrect info without actually reading it yourself as you suggested?
Now, understand that EACH title ALSO has its own eula that IS from the publisher, as I stated in a previous comment. Perhaps you're confusing the general Steam eula with a specific title's publisher's eula?
The Steam EULA section covering product licensing:
A. General Content and Services License
Steam and your Subscription(s) require the download and installation of Content and Services onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
For reasons that include, without limitation, system security, stability, and multiplayer interoperability, Steam may need to automatically update, pre-load, create new versions of or otherwise enhance the Content and Services and accordingly, the system requirements to use the Content and Services may change over time. You consent to such automatic updating. You understand that this Agreement (including applicable Subscription Terms) does not entitle you to future updates, new versions or other enhancements of the Content and Services associated with a particular Subscription, although Valve may choose to provide such updates, etc. in its sole discretion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Americium-120 China is reaching the tipping point, Russia is already past it, where their demographic crisis will result in permanently decreasing population. As that happens, China will lose its ability to consider a war. They'd end up facing what Putin is currently. Russia doesn't have enough population for the military and manufacturing sector to propagate the war. Russia had the benefit of insane Soviet equipment inheritance. However, they're on pace to burn through most of it, in most categories, by the end of 2025 (so, just 4 years of fighting Western surplus and hand me downs) and new build production is meager compared to the burn rate.
We're, unfortunately, going to see a world where the biggest threat to global stability continues to come from the Middle East, both nation states like Iran and Saudi Arabia who just can't be civilized as well as the various terr groups.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4:10 Fact check, Ukraine government discrimination against Russian speakers
Even after the the 2014 regime change in Kyiv and legislation aimed at making only Ukrainian the official language of the country, people in the eastern "Donbas" area, and especially Crimea which was even more autonomous than Donetsk and Luhansk, didn't really concern themselves with what Kyiv was doing.
Because these regions were already semi or mostly autonomous, the people there didn't notice much difference in daily life and were not facing discrimination UNTIL the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
At THAT point, Ukrainians started to view the Russian speakers as part of the problem. BEFORE the Russian invasion, this wasn't the case.
I'm speaking from watching the experiences of a close friend from Donetsk (in the eastern Donbas region).
She spoke Russian and had no problems after the removal of Putin's crony, Yanukovych, until the Russian "asymmetrical warfare" invasion of 2014.
When artillery and rifle fire could be heard, she caught a ride with friends and fled with her daughter (elementary school age) to another city in Ukraine.
At that point, being a refugee inside the country and a Russian speaker, she did notice people treating her differently and saying that her daughter spoke strangely (daughter also spoke Russian).
Fast forward a few years and they'd both acclimated to the new city, had friends and acquaintances, and life was fairly normal. They still both spoke mainly Russian, while spending more effort both in school and out learning English more than Ukrainian.
Even so, with the events of the 2014 invasion moving farther into the past, any discrimination also waned.
Fast forward to March 2014 and this woman who once staunchly said she was Russian if anyone misinterpreted her being born and living in Ukraine as making her Ukrainian was making molotovs and camo nets along with the other mothers and daughters and now proclaims that she is a proud Ukrainian (and has even gone so far as to start looking into psychology resources online "to find out what is so wrong with the Russians" in her words).
At this point, with Russia again invading and her only making an effort to improve her Ukrainian language ability since the beginning of the war, she hasn't once mentioned any discrimination because she speaks broken Ukrainian with a Russian, Donetsk accent.
The people in those liberated towns that are apprehensive about being liberated are either direct collaborators or people who took the occupation opportunity to mistreat other people to gain some personal benefit. It's not because of an outright "Russian" or "Russian speaker" apprehension.
4
-
He had the same plan that the US had in Afghanistan.
Attack.
Liberate.
...
Profit.
Basically, Putin couldn't hold Ukraine and would be fighting a low intensity insurgency FOREVER (or until they got tired of it and went home, as happened to both Russia and the US in Afghanistan).
So, you're not quite asking the question you meant to.
You meant to ask, "What did Putin THINK his endgame was?"
The answer to THAT is: he thought he would take Kyiv in 3 to 7 days and have troops in control of all major municipal buildings (as they did in the Crimea blitz) within 2 weeks.
Putin thought the Ukrainian military wouldn't put up a substantial fight, that the government would flee Kyiv, and once Kyiv fell the country would capitulate (government and military).
The Ukrainian people would welcome the Russians and thank them from freeing them from Western oppression and Ukrainians would welcome a new Russian crony government (such as Lukashenko in Belarus and Yanukocych previously in Ukraine).
After a certain period of consolidating and integrating Ukraine, Russia would then prepare to repeat the process with the other former Soviet states (which were independent countries before being overrun and subjugated by Russia).
Had Ukraine not fought and the West not supplied aid, intel, and training, in perhaps 3 to 5 years, we'd be finding out if NATO was more serious about Article 5 than the USA and UK were about the Budapest Memorandum (agreement to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its Soviet era nukes).
The answer to the question as you phrased it: Russia has no practical, actionable plan for Ukraine. Their current back burner hope is to keep the war going and hold on to some part of Ukraine forever. This would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO unless NATO makes some exceptions to the requirements in the charter.
The Russian economy has yet to feel the full effects of sanctions as Russia has been using its foreign currency reserves to buy up Rubles. As those reserves run out and as buyers of Russian oil that were allowed to buy on credit default on payments, Russia will continue to have a worse and worse time supplying its forces in Ukraine and, eventually they'll leave (either in military retreat or political conclusion with a new Russian regime) or die.
At that point there will be huge incentive to admit Ukraine into NATO as a way of protecting the investment NATO and EU countries have made in Ukraine (the aid has mostly been loans, to be repaid) as well as protect private companies and governments that will be investing into the rebuilding of Ukraine.
TLDR: what? I gave my short answer above.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Actually the 2.5 to 1 KIA does indicate a better attrition situation for Ukraine. Russia has more wounded that don't return to the war or take longer or are improperly released for duty and less capable (for example, a TBI patient sent back to the front and he gets dizzy or blacks out when he's next exposed to artillery noise).
Russia only has a 3 to 1 ratio of men over Ukraine.
So, even if they're close on casualties removing troops from the fight, Ukraine has a huge manpower advantage of most of their manufacturing being outsourced to Western countries (that whole "no aid to Ukraine because of the cost" being silly because aid to Ukraine is financial stimulus for the countries actually building the equipment).
Russia, the largest country in the world, needs more men to simply maintain the societal infrastructure. AND, men are needed for the factories.
Russian unemployment is about 0% (zero). Factories are fighting with the military for workers. Both are under quotas. Both sectors can't fill the quotas, especially for skilled manufacturing fields (welders, CNC operators). People with mechanical or trade skills were very desirable for the military and either already signed up or were mobilized for their skills.
Russia has more people but it doesn't have ENOUGH people.
Plus, the numbers game assumes that every person in Russia, including the oligarchs and politicians are willing to fight to the last man.
As it drags on, as Ukraine's strategic bombing campaign continues to eliminate Russian income streams and production for local use, and as more and more Russians realize the war isn't just something on the TV but actually something that can affect them and people they care about, the less likely they are going to want that "to the last man" fight.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Would've fixed it if they broke it..."
Sure, there's two sides to every story. However, recently, I had some equipment at a shop for repair. Part of the work was too in del, so they hired it out to a 3rd party, which happened to be a dealer shop.
When I got it back, part of a fan had a chunk of blade missing. I pointed this out to the shop foreman. He agreed that the damage was fresh because there wasn't any dirt or grime on the cut edge as there was on every other surface and edge of the fan blades.
The foreman of that shop was great and said he'd replace it and go back on the dealership shop in their bill so that I wouldn't have to pay upfront or hassle with the dealership to get it replaced.
OEMs absolutely do shady and shoddy stuff. In this incident, I was fortunate that there was an independent 3rd party, from a reputable national brand, that was able to see the damaged part before I left.
The amount of dealership shop bad work I get is insane, only topped by the amount of upselling they push, to include repairs that are simply not necessary.
If I had that happen at the shop, which previously have with other repairs, they would've simply said, "oh, we didn't do that, but we'll be happy to replace it for you...at full labor price."
4
-
4
-
@SouthernSteeler - technically, all assistance to Ukraine is a loan, the way assistance to Britain was during WWII.
As for reconstruction, a lot of that will simply be natural, local investment or loans from the EU as Ukraine proceeds towards that or possibly the IMF. Loans for reconstruction from the US government will be fairly low, in comparison.
Unfortunately, we can't afford to NOT help Ukraine. Chaos breeds chaos. The Iran and Houthi situation are related to Russian aggression in Ukraine. The worldwide economic downturn's severity is related to Russian aggression in Ukraine, Ukraine reducing Russian fossil fuels production (rightly so), and uncertainty about both fossil fuels and general economic issues during the largest war in Europe since WWII.
Getting Russia out of Ukraine as quickly as possible will save more money in the long term than letting the situation fester.
AND, that's before we consider direct costs to America if we continue to act in a manner than conveys fear and uncertainty to Putin which encourages him to continue on with his plan to re-absorb countries which he views as "Ruski Mir" or Russian territory, like Latvia (likely his next target and a NATO member).
No, Russia doesn't have the military capacity to successfully invade Latvia if NATO responds.
No, that inability to achieve success didn't stop Russia from invading Georgia the first time or prevent Russia from invading Ukraine.
Putin isn't logical or reasoning AND, he's suffering the #DictatorProblems of advisors and generals telling him what he wants to hear, "Suuure, we can invade Latvia! 3 days war, easy!"
Putin needs to be told an unequivocal, "No! You can't invade Europe or rebuild the Russian Empire's borders of either the Soviet Union or first Russian Empire."
Europe is finally realizing this. Hemming and hawing the way the US so-called "Republicans" are doing is showing Putin that it's OK if he does something absurd like attack a NATO country expecting the US to continue our weak behavior.
4
-
@aureate - because not providing a schematic is a roadblock in the 3rd party repair shop being able to do repairs, at the behest of the products owner.
In the automotive world, at least in the US, there has been "right to repair" legislation on the books and in force. The automotive equivalent to an iPhone or MacBook schematic is the standard Chilton Manual that shows how every bit of every car is put together (see examples in link).
http://www.delmarlearning.com/Browse_Catalog.aspx?Cat1ID=AU&Cat2ID=CHM&Cat3ID=CHM07
Technology companies are trying to get around these types of EXISTING laws in other sectors by claiming that their "product", which was purchased by a consumer is not a "product," that your iPhone is, instead, a "technology".
Tesla is using the same argument to get around existing automotive right to repair laws.
Basically, the only reason you're asking such a question as "why should the oem provide a schematic?" and why legislators have been slow to respond to this issue is timing.
We live in an era where we throw things away if they don't work and buy a new or newer one,at least in the first world.
Right to Repair is a simple matter of fact in less fortunate areas of the world. They will repair what they have because a new one either isn't available or is too expensive.
You ask why should the OEMs provide a schematic. The answer is that to not provide the schematic is a roadblock to a customer's ability to repair a product that the customer bought.
Let's go a step further. OEMs are actually not just fighting off requests for schematics, but they are actively fighting (suing) 3rd party companies who create a schematic (a drawing) of their OWN product that was PURCHASED.
You buy an iPhone. It's yours. You own it. You take it apart. It's yours. You can take it apart, if you want to. You make a drawing of YOUR phone's inside layout. You post it online. Apple will serve you with a takedown notice and then file suit for copyright infringement. That was YOUR product and YOUR drawing of it, NOT an OEM schematic.
Basically, the OEMs want to do everything to prevent you from repairing something that you PURCHASED and OWN so that if it breaks, your only option, if you have continued need of that product, is to buy a new one.
Related, in other sectors, OEMs will sell a brand name replacement part. Other manufacturers can create the same part, but not use the OEM's label. Tech companies actively try to prevent parts manufacturers from making parts that aren't being sold specifically to the OEM.
I mention these other two things the OEMs do (blocking YOU from creating a schematic and blocking sale of non OEM brand parts) because these behaviors are also meant as a roadblock to impede the customer's ability to repair the products that the customer owns.
"Why should customers be allowed to repair products they own?" would be the next question you might ask.
The answer to that is the US has a strong sense of "personal property." If I buy something, I own it and can do what I want with it, including disassemble or repair it.
There are laws that specifically provide for this, related to other sectors. Here's a link to the Massachusetts law, for the auto industry that forced auto industry to agree to make available advanced diagnostic equipment for modern vehicles.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2013/Chapter165
4
-
@aureate - you point out that Chinese companies could make cheap knock off parts, if...
It's actually Chinese companies that make the cheap oem parts. So, they don't need to reverse engineer a part.
Further, you argue that the cost of the product is in the engineering. The cost of engineering is in the cost of the product. These phone and tablet manufacturers are not trying to to protect their investment into the engineering.
They are trying to double dip by preventing repair of an existing product (that you already paid into the engineering of) and force you to buy a new one (and thereby pay for the engineering of the newer model).
You also don't argue against right to repair of automobiles. One of the industry's biggest arguments is that it's not safe for 3rd party repair shops to repair a phone.
I'd argue an automobile, with many heavy, sharp parts and flammable fluids is more dangerous than a phone repair. I haven't looked up actual numbers, but I'd bet money more people are injured repairing vehicles than phones.
Also, I'd like to ask you why you start to throw insults like "self righteous...".
If I've paid for something, the seller has accounted for his research and development costs, per unit, in the price of the unit that I paid for.
If that device has a non warranty issue, I should be allowed to repair it, BECAUSE I PAID FOR IT.
"I paid for it." There's absolutely nothing self-righteous about it.
Finally, manufacturers already are designing products that can't be repaired. This nefarious tactic is ultimately what will push right to repair across the finish line.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
To expand on what Andrew said, it's not like Afghanistan, where fighting stopped in winter. There, it's not just about the cold. Snow can make terrain impassable. Along with Taliban fighters basically being like the VC in the Vietnam War, just blending in with other villagers. They weren't in dug in positions and wearing uniforms. Plus, they'd go into Pakistan where we couldn't operate.
In Ukraine, winter will be a better time for maneuvering because the ground should freeze. You can drive, or walk, on frozen ground covered with snow. Once spring hits and the ground turns to mud, vehicles are stuck using paved roads. Ukraine knows that they don't want to allow Russia a break. That's why they don't engage Russia in its attempts at pretend peace talks.
A cease fire for pretend peace talks or any other reason only benefits Russia. Also, in Russia right now, there is battling between hardline militants and those who realize that the war is already lost as they jockey for Putin's ear and while many people keep having mysterious accidents near 4th floor windows. The Russian situation is a mess. Then, Ukraine still has a logistics advantage with being able to move troops and supplies quicker inside Ukraine than Russia can move things from Russia to Ukraine.
Russia may be trying to plan some offensive but it's not going to be a season thing. It will be whenever they think they have enough bodies and artillery shells to try. Because Bakhmut doesn't hold strategic value, Ukraine, and the other Western analysts assisting with surveillance and intelligence, have been wary that this was just a distraction from whatever Russia may have really been planning.
Personally, I think the infighting in Russia and casualty rate of trained leaders in the field in Ukraine has drained Russia of the ability to put together any coordinated offensive at all. Top that off with Putin trying to manage his own political survival, manage his sycophants in fighting, order the political assassinations, AND micromanage the war in Ukraine and the command situation in Ukraine is going to be like watching a 4k movie on bad internet, the buffering icon is just spinning in Ukraine waiting for Putin's next orders. Worse, like Adolf, those orders are probably going to exasperate any officers who actually paid attention in class, resulting in less than enthusiastic implementation.
So, no spring offensive. But, offensive whenever Russian command in Ukraine is ordered to...based on foolish leadership.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Russia is a member of the United Nations because the civilized Western world mistakenly believed that if we treated Russia like a respectable, decent country, they would eventually become one. Hindsight being 20/20, we got that wrong and Russia is nothing but uncivilized barbarians who have no interest in joining the world community.
The reason Russia can't be kicked out is because of the way the United Nations charter was written. Again, the civilized nations, incorrectly, thought there wouldn't be a need to kick someone out.
You're right, though. Russia, an aggressive nation with a history of invading and attempting to subjugate its neighbors, has no business being on the security council, especially. Russia starts a war with a neighbor who didn't have the military capacity to be a threat and then Russia vetos any security council actions against Russia. Seems legit.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@@KittyCat-mp3rm - just last week, Jake Broe channel posted a link to a vid where Ukrainian 4th tank brigade was engaging Russian armor trying to escorts BMPs. Tank on tank is not fantasy. Just as drones are becoming more prolific, so are countermeasures. Besides that, drones won't be everywhere all the time. Even when each vehicle and infantry fireteam has a drone operator, the drones will break or get shot down.
Either way, in Ukraine, there is tank against tank fighting. The Leopard is doing exactly the job it was designed to. Incidentally, that Russian column of BMPs and T-72 or T-90 (aka T-72) were decimated without returning fire. That overbuilt Leo is a much better place to be than the Ukrainian's old T-64 tanks and a better place to be than the Russian T-72.
If I have a tank, infantry unit, a drone, and a way to shoot down or disable drones and all you have is the infantry unit, drone, and a way to shoot down my drone, I win. Because I have a tank.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
7:48 re, numbers
Perun channel did a good piece exploring attrition and mobilization of men and equipment on both sides.
People, number of troops mobilized isn't going to be a deciding factor unless the number of casualties move into the millions.
Yes, Russia has a larger population. But, since Ukraine has been fully mobilized for war from day 1, Ukraine actually has a larger military and the equipment and training pipelines to support the higher level of recruitment.
Russia can mobilize more people over the long term, but it can't train and equip them in the short to medium term.
Plus, Russia is running a higher casualty rate. So, it needs to recruit, conscript, or mobilize more troops than Ukraine just to keep up with the Ukrainian military growth.
So far Russia hasn't been keeping up because it wasn't mobilizing for war (because there was no "war", just a special military operation).
Russia was instead drawing down its active military, its reservists, and then finally it ran the first wave of mobilization. That mobilization went horribly and more men left the country than were added to the military.
So, Ukraine has been continuing to process recruits and train them abroad while Russia has been burning conscripts and mobiliki trying to figure out how to do another mobilization.
So, Russia has a larger population, but that wouldn't translate into a manpower advantage for several years, at least.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Thedude4777-gh1lj - You bring up a good point about Syrskyi and Bakhmut. To answer your question, yes. Syrskyi was also playing the bad hand dealt to him by Zaluzhny at Bakhmut. If you want to know who OUGHT to be called "the butcher", read on for a deep dive that you haven't seen covered on any channels.
Where did Syrskyi earn that nickname, "the butcher"? The defense of Kyiv? The defense of Bakhmut?
Unfortunately, war isn't summer camp. Troops are going to be wounded and killed. The other option is to not fight and allow Russia to simply exterminate or sterilize any men of fighting or child making age.
Both the defense of Kyiv and Bakhmut were critical. If Kyiv had fallen, game over.
Bakhmut was initially only worthwhile as a place to grind down Russian troops as they crossed open areas. Even with a good attrition ratio, troops would still be lost.
As Ukraine began developing the southern offensive, Bakhmut actually gained strategic value. Keeping Russian troops engaged near Bakhmut kept them from being redeployed to the Zaporizhia area.
That was doubly beneficial and doubly difficult for the Bakhmut defenders since the Wagner troops were the most brutal and most capable that Russia had AND Russia hadn't yet run into their artillery ammo shortages.
Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that such vigorous defense of Bakhmut wasn't productive because the southern offensive failed for reasons that wouldn't be apparent until it began.
The primary 3 reasons for that failure were:
1) the failure of the Western advisors to realize that NATO wouldn't even attempt such an offensive without air superiority (to be able to destroy the artillery protecting the minefields)
2) Ukraine's failure to realize that the Western advisors were full of poop and out of their depth and shouldn't be listened to
3) the West's failure to provide Ukraine with sufficient type and quantity of long range fires (cruise missiles) and specialty equipment (mine clearing vehicles, mobile front line air defense vehicles, aircraft) BEFORE THE START of the offensive such to make the offensive possible with the advice the Western advisors were pushing on Ukraine.
In hindsight we know all that. Even now, such strategic concerns might not be known or understood by the troops who think Syrskyi "kept feeding men into the grinder" merely because he didn't care about the men or the losses.
More correct to say is that Syrskyi did so because he was ordered to buy time for the staging of the southern offensive.
In that case, Syrskyi isn't "the butcher". Rather, the Western advisors pushing bad advice on Ukraine, the Western counties who failed to provide sufficient equipment for the defense of Europe (through defeating Russia in Ukraine) and the Ukrainian leadership and commander in chief failing to realize the shortcomings of Western advice without air superiority that all Western strategy depends on are the ACTUAL butchers that fed men into the grinder.
Syrskyi is just the poor bast@rd scapegoat who got stuck with the ugly but necessary job of sending those unfortunate men to their deaths in order to allow success of the larger strategic goals (which, again, we NOW, after the fact, know was a bad trade).
And, the guys on the frontline or in units that are being reconstituted after heavy losses won't know about any of that because their concerns are much more personal and local (their safety, safety of the guy next to them, and will they make it home).
In this regard, Syrskyi being forced to send those men to their deaths for a failed offensive and bad strategic decisions by the prior commander in chief, put him in an excellent place to avoid wasting lives on poorly thought strategic goals where previously he was only in a position to carry out the bad orders he was given.
As much as the men love Zaluzhny, HE was the one who sent them into the grinder by ordering Syrskyi to hold Bakhmut to allow the failed southern offensive which Zaluzhny was also responsible for.
The extra irony is that if Sysrki had been "motherly" about his troops welfare compared to command decisions, the troops would like him even less because they wouldn't respect him and would think he didn't have the stomach to make the tough command decisions required of a general during war.
It's normal Western military leadership for higher echalon commanders to not be "buddies" with subordinates. This can give the appearance to the men that the commander is uncaring and aloof. At times, this may be true, but for the most part, being human, these people will care about the troops they're sending to their deaths and these decisions will weigh on them.
At the end of the day, Syrskyi has to live with the fact that he sent troops to die for the failed southern offensive and have the maturity and patience to be called "the butcher" while the man actually responsible for extra deaths at Bakhmut, Zaluzhny for ordering it be held and for signing off on the poorly thought out southern offensive, is regarded as well liked by the troops.
This reminds me of an AMA or viewer mail episode from Ryan McBeth, for those familiar with his channel. He explained that he WASN'T a good leader because he wanted people to like him and didn't want to give orders that he knew men wouldn't like (or that would be dangerous in wartime).
While the troops might not think so now, Syrskyi's understanding of Russian thinking combined with modern training plus his experience with having to send men to their deaths needlessly because of poor strategy from higher command put him in a very good place to be an effective overall commander for Ukraine.
Hopefully, you made it through that long comment to have greater understanding of the bigger picture.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You missed the important first step. NATO, the US especially, would open up with a swarm of cruise missiles at every known anti aircraft system, radar, and command and communication locations (along with various aircraft tasked with hunting and suppressing enemy air defenses, SEAD, as well as other deep strike missions from B-2 or other stealth aircraft that would target high value leadership locations.
Then, there's air to air combat (which, as we've seen, will be mostly beyond visual range), but mainly after NATO has smashed the enemy command and air defenses with long range strikes.
That's why Ukraine got stuck and punished in the minefields and roads to such while trying to use Western tactics without Western depth of cruise missile and long range fires capability.
With Europe sending more and GLSDB finally being a thing and maybe even F-16 (which will mainly be a ground attack platform) to help knock out air defenses so that drones and helicopters can knock out the artillery so that the minefields can be cleared.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sstratford123 - for a moment, I thought the findings you listed were about the United States. I had to scroll back up.
Independent judiciary? What about the federal judge who threw out an armored car company's request to issue a pre - trial injunction against a California sheriff's department that has been "legally" hijacking its armored cars and the proceeds mostly go to the US government, with a kick back to the sheriff department, through asset forfeiture laws?
Abuse of Detainees? Ask former police officer Derek Chauvin why he was imprisoned (and subsequently stabbed 22 times). It sure wasn't for upholding detainee rights and guaranteeing proper care.
Etc, etc.
You're trying to say Ukraine isn't perfect. Glass houses and stones, my friend.
The important question is whether Ukraine has been improving. Remember, you're talking about a former Soviet state that has been burdened with the mindset of some people that corruption is normal (it's well documented how Russia corruption compromised its military). All of the former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact countries that are now EU or NATO members would've had similar reports prior to them having a path to join those organizations. Hungary and Slovakia probably still do have such reports based on their Soviet-esque governments.
Israel, beacon of the Western civilized world in the Middle East, is also pretty bad on the issues you chastise Ukraine for and that's part of the current cause of their troubles.
To answer your question, yes I supported Ukraine in 2014 because I have a friend living there who had to flee the Donetsk area in 2014, despite being one of the Russian speakers that Putin's Russian proxies were "liberating". Putin's anarchists and criminals that Russia transported to eastern Ukraine and referred to as "separatists" were responsible for the death of my friend's grandmother (who raised her) when they began shelling the town with artillery prior to attacking (the same method Russia has used in Ukraine since 2022 which has turned many towns to rubble). The grandmother wouldn't leave her home when other people were evacuating and, ironically, had fond memories of the "good old days" during Stalin. No joke. That's how "Russian" my friend was raised inside Ukraine and who has proudly declared herself Ukrainian, not Russian, since February 2022.
Since 2014, I've also been pointing out how the US and UK didn't fulfill our obligations under the Budapest Memorandum to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its Soviet era nuclear deterrent.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In the modern battlefield, surprise isn't really a thing. You can't group men and materiel and expect even a 2nd rate military, like Russia, to not notice.
Also, Russia was building defenses everywhere they weren't actively fighting, including Crimea and in Russia.
Announced intentions or lack of surprise had zero impact on Russia building defenses.
Plus, as far as announcing intentions, Ukraine is dealing with the issue of fighting on their territory. They have to alert civilians so that any who want to and can leave will have the opportunity to do so BEFORE the fighting starts.
Ukraine can't fight "Russian style" bombarding villages and towns without warning.
You guys are failing to account for the fact that Ukraine has to fight while minimizing civilian casualties. The Russian barbarians don't have that limitation.
Then, there was the possible benefit that if Russia did divert disproportionately more men and resources to the announced area, that Ukraine could pivot to a weaker area like the Donbas or Bakhmut area, which is what occurred during the Kharkiv /Kherson dilemma.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
For $1499 (usd), just a couple weeks ago, I picked up a Power Spec 1520 (Micro Center store brand based on Clevo chassis /bios). It's spec'd exactly the same (2070 isn't maxq) as the unit tested in this vid.
The chassis is plastic and the 144hz monitor has light bleed at the corners, but for the price, the tradeoffs are minimal and value is extreme. The screen even has G-Sync active. And it had ZERO bloatware pre-installed.
Regarding Razer, I recently had a sound issue that I thought was due to software issue with the Razer Surround or Razer Synapse control center. It turns out that the issue was my other laptop about to enter a bsod loop. But, Razer customer support was very aggressive. So, if they have the same response to hardware issues, I'm sure that's part of the cost of entry. And, I've owned a Razer Chroma mouse for 5 years. So, that high priced item had good enough quality.
Incidentally, my previous two gaming laptops were Asus. Their customer service is pretty much owners helping each other on the forums, short of sending them the laptop. Fortunately, I had only self installed upgrades as "service" for the first one that lasted 5 years and got 3.5 years out of this recent one (and will soon be digging into it to see what its problem is).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I agree with the use of "alleged" in these types of vids, because in the USA, a person is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." It's not "guilty by social media until proven innocent." So, until there is a conviction, a crime is only alleged.
However, "attempted" is an odd choice. The legal implication of "attempted" is "didn't succeed". Yet, the dude carried off the girl. It is a successful alleged kidnapping. Remember when you see something, you don't have all the details from a 30 second short. That could be the guy's mentally ill sister who's off her meds again and trying to escape her legally responsible guardian and caregiver. I'm not saying that IS what's happening just that it's a possibility to highlight that it's never a good idea to assume guilt, especially from a 30 second short.
Imagine your daughter gets mad at you for not buying her something and she screams, "RAPE!" in a public place within earshot of police. You're probably getting arrested, detained at the least, and you'd probably rather not have passersby determining your guilt or innocence merely by your daughter's scream.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Neuzahnstein - that's the catch 22,though. With a helicopter, the only way to get more range is to gain more altitude.
It's always a tradeoff. Gaining more altitude to engage at greater range means exposing the helicopter to radar guided SAMs that have a longer range than the shoulder launched SAMs that they'd have to deal with if they remain lower but have to get closer.
An apache would be limited to similar tactics, ranges, and weapons (unguided rocket) that is shown in the video if it didn't want to eat a missile.
Our guys haven't had to deal with this type of anti air coverage. If the US were fighting this war, we'd throw enough jets and cruise missiles up at the same time as the helicopters and artillery would be supporting tanks and infantry.
SAM radar sites are less of a problem if they're overwhelmed by targets, are destroyed by those targets, or simply don't turn the radar in to avoid being destroyed.
Infantry fired SAMs are less of a problem if that infantry has to pick up a rifle or RPG instead to deal with a more imminent problem.
Unfortunately, Ukraine simply doesn't have the amount of machines and command and control to support such combined arms operations involving aircraft.
Even in the US scenario, we'd still lose jets and pilots just as we did in Iraq 1 when they had credible air defenses. Well, they had air defenses for the first few days until they'd been destroyed by the overwhelming air power thrown at them. Then again, unlike Russia, Iraq had no credible air force to attempt to fend off our attacks.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, Putin calculated correctly based on the world's response to his invasion of Ukraine.
The west did practically nothing in response to Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine using "asymmetrical forces", criminals and anarchists that Russia trucked into eastern Ukraine and began referring to as "separatists".
This inaction includes the United States and United Kingdom that guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 when Ukraine foolishly gave up its nuclear deterrent power.
Fortunately, NATO, Europe, and the United States realized that Putin being allowed to take over Ukraine with continued inaction would lead to Russia progressing his plan to rebuild the Soviet Empire which would lead to invading NATO countries like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland which would be next in line for attack.
Ukraine isn't just fighting for their own independence from Russia, they are fighting to prevent World War 3, which would ignite if Putin invaded former Soviet states that are now NATO members. And, Putin, like another fascist dictator, wouldn't stop with just the one gained territory.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@xr6lad - I wasn't saying the end is nigh. I was merely pointing out that IF the Atlantic currents change drastically, we will have bigger concerns than "does this affect shipping".
I was also pointing out the secret that climate change activists never mention. IF the global temps do rise (or, more accurately WHEN they rise, because the earth was in a warming trend thousands of years before humans started burning fossil fuels), the Earth will end up entering a cooling phase. Models predict this will occur, even if Man is carbon neutral, in about 55,000 (and the global temps will continue to rise until then).
The Earth really doesn't care about humans or what we do. The actual drivers of climate change are beyond our technological means to control (tectonic, volcanic, solar, meteor, etc).
So, if humans don't decide to quit wasting resources fighting over lines on the map, what race, religion, or tribe someone is from, etc ONE DAY, the end will be nigh. Or, at least as far as life as we know it, even if some humans survive and adapt.
Based on history, eventually Earth will catch another catastrophic meteor. No amount of carbon capture will save the climate from THAT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2:55 it's like Putin. Putin was Prime Minister, then President, then again Prime Minister, now again President.
Regardless of title, he's been in charge the entire time.
I'm surprised shareholders of Disney don't appear concerned, voting in all the board members.
5:40 pilots are coming up positive now. So, anyone traveling by plane in the last 3 or 4 weeks may have been exposed also. Of course, their symptoms won't show up for a week or two more.
9:46 "Our parks are closed and movie releases are on hold, but, hey, you can already stream The Fall of Skywalker online!"
11:28 where are all these huge cruise ships parking?
19:39 death rate for people over 65 is around 7% or 2500% more than normal seasonal flu mortality rate. So, if people value their grandparents more than they value their inheritance, they should take things more seriously.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Cortesevasive - right, Ukraine has been mobilized since February 24th. However, unlike Russia, Ukraine doesn't send its troops, zombie-like into objectives that can't succeed, where they'll just be cut down. When Ukraine does spend blood and lives, it's for something important and possible.
Also, regarding your "Ukrainians outnumber Russians" hypothesis, I think it was Perun but I'm not sure if it may have been another creator analysis, but they pointed out that a big part of "Ukrainian horde" that allegedly outnumbered Russians 10 to 1 in Kharkiv was partly due to the fact that each unit that routed said they faced X Ukrainians.
Without inflicting many casualties as the Russians routed or broke and surrendered, the next group of Russian defenders faced the same number of Ukrainians and reported such.
So, at the start of the counteroffensive, a Ukrainian unit had 100 men. That unit engaged 5 Russian positions and 5 Russian positions relayed 100 attacking Ukrainian troops, as the Russians routed. Command, and Russian media heard 500 Ukrainians...because 100 was reported 5 times.
#RussianLogic
3
-
3
-
One problem Russia has with Ukraine occupying a large city is that other than police and any such civilian armed personnel, nobody has an guns. If Ukraine shows up in Belgorod, takes the capital building and puts up the Ukrainian flag and there's no Russian troops fighting against it, it will largely be like the Russian takeover of Crimea. If Ukrainian soldiers aren't looting, or worse, and treating the population politely, it would largely be business as usual.
The civilians won't want a fight. It's human nature to want tomorrow to be similar to today. The flag at the capital changed but everything else is mostly the same? OK. Keeping civil service, fire department, electricity, water, food, etc available would be the trick. Without food and water or even electricity possibly, the civilians might decide to try and gang up on smaller security patrols of Ukrainians.
By the time Ukraine says, "we're in charge now, be nice," the mystique of Fuhrov Putin being all powerful will have worn off.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
8:50 tanks and cities
You don't need to put the city. Over the last year, Ukraine has done very little, if any, urban to RETAKE territory.
They do urban fighting when they're DEFENDING a town or city.
On offense, Ukraine uses its assets to cut off Russia supply. To assault Donetsk, Ukraine would use tanks OUTSIDE the city to starve the Russians and have them counting bullets.
Your thinking Iraq or Afghanistan where our tanks were in towns both over because we were the foreign force AND because our enemy blended in with (and were) the population living in the town.
How much urban fighting occurred in Kherson or Kharkiv or even Kyiv? Some, but not much. Those battles were fought OUTSIDE of the city over supply lines.
So, to your point of terrain, you don't want to use tanks where they can be ambushed and trapped like a narrow valley road, bridge, or ridge (basically anywhere they are too heavy to move over the terrain or anywhere that they can't maneuver if attacked so that killing the lead vehicle doesn't make the entire group stuck)
3
-
3
-
Since these vehicles were moving south away from the line of contact, after fighting a Russian push north of the T-90 vs Bradley engagement, the Bradleys may have been low on ammunition (I suspect the first Bradley was out of ammo or had wounded and that's why they kept heading home).
Even if the Bradley wasn't able to penetrate the T-90, as others pointed out, knocked out the optics and left the crew inside blind. Looking at the turret, they don't appear to have redundant old style vision blocks or periscopes.
The Bradley can also mess up the tracks. So, whether it's because the driver can't see, the tank has some drivetrain issue, or track issue, they weren't able to reverse back up the street they were on or turn around successfully.
Near the end of the vid before the tank DUI's into a tree, the Bradley popped off both TOW missiles, but they were a little too close to arm.
I'd guess the conversation in the tank before they bailed out wasn't polite and professional.
In another channel, suchomimus maybe they point out that the T-90 had no support. Their support, the rest of that attack, was shut down north of the town (town is where we see the T-90) and the T-90 already either had horrible situational and battlefield awareness with no communication with friendlies or they had specific orders to drive into that town no matter what. That's ULTIMATELY what killed the T-90 trying to YOLO the Ukrainians solo.
Forrest Gump may not have been a smart man, but even he knew that being alone was bad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AlphaOmeg-y3h - the problem is that if you DO have covid19, you won't know for 5 to 14 days, when you develop symptoms.
Let's say you definitely do NOT have it. But, your neighbor does. He goes to the same quickie mart you do. He wipes his noise as he gets out of his car to go in.
The door, any items he touched, the money or card reader he touched, etc is now a transmission point for EVERYONE ELSE who interacts with those items for up to THREE DAYS (the duration covid19 has been found to live on surfaces).
So, now because your neighbor exercised his freedom, hundreds of people, INCLUDING YOU, ARE infected.
Here's the really fun part: because YOU excercised your freedom, you allowed your neighbor to get you sick. Since you won't show symptoms or KNOW you're sick for 5 to 14 days, you go and get the people you care about sick.
You and your loved ones are now sick. But, hey at least you were free. I hope grandma and cousin Bill with asthma pull through!
Rights come with responsibilities. Being responsible and reasonable is the patriotic thing. And if you're going to claim your right to freedom, liberty you must be a patriot: act like it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sammygirl6910 - Oh, my. Capital letters!
When you mention securing possible food sources, you're suggesting that the homeowner either not put out birdfeed or do so in a way that the bear can't reach it. That's a sensible suggestion.
However, you mention not acclimation bears to humans, you're suggesting that the homeowner not enjoy time outside on their porch. Being able to be outside and near nature is probably a main reason for living there.
The bears become less intimidated by humans because they already know that there's food to be found and when they do manage to get into it, they're rewarded for the coming near humans.
The bears are going to investigate the human structures, regardless, because we've built into their range.
In a cursory search search the only thing I'd found on bear culling in western North Carolina was that they hadn't had an incident requiring such for years.
It so uncommon that I didn't find anything discussing an incident of culling. So, I thing you're going a bit "millennial think" on the issue and being overly concerned (aka "triggered" for millennials) about something that isn't actually an issue.
Further, in an incident where a homeowner killed a nuisance bear that had actually damaged his property, breaking into home and car several times, a local wildlife agency had been raising funds to send the cubs to a sanctuary to be raised for a year before being returned to the wild.
Looking into actual, recorded events doesn't bear out your concerns, not even if I used capital letters in the search box.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I agree with the use of "alleged" in these types of vids, because in the USA, a person is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." It's not "guilty by social media until proven innocent." So, until there is a conviction, a crime is only alleged.
However, "attempted" is an odd choice. The legal implication of "attempted" is "didn't succeed". Yet, the dude carried off the girl. It is a successful alleged kidnapping. Remember when you see something, you don't have all the details from a 30 second short. That could be the guy's mentally ill sister who's off her meds again and trying to escape her legally responsible guardian and caregiver. I'm not saying that IS what's happening just that it's a possibility to highlight that it's never a good idea to assume guilt, especially from a 30 second short.
Imagine your daughter gets mad at you for not buying her something and she screams, "RAPE!" in a public place within earshot of police. You're probably getting arrested, detained at the least, and you'd probably rather not have passersby determining your guilt or innocence merely by your daughter's scream.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@omarali262 sleeping in a chair? Nope. That's 60 hours of mostly putting up with suicidal car drivers (aka "driving" time) and probably about 5 logged hours of putting up with disrespectful customers, slow loaders, jammed fuel lanes, and daily equipment inspection (aka "on duty" time).
But, since you want to nit pick, I'll go ahead and point out that the logged on duty time is kept to a minimum because otherwise it takes away from time available to drive.
First, most drivers don't get paid for ANY on duty time, so any time logged as "on duty" is unpaid work and that time takes away from available driving time.
Second, because the vehicle is stopped during "on duty" time, the electronic log device can't tell if a driver is doing something that is on duty (fueling, interacting with customer, etc) or off duty (eating lunch, sleeping).
So, most actual time spent on duty isn't logged as on duty) because it's unpaid and zero sum stealing from time a driver does get paid for). So, that 60 hour week I mentioned, with no overtime, is actually more like a 65 hour week with 10 completely unpaid hours of work.
Also, if you think sitting in a chair doing nothing isn't work, go to work, sit in a chair doing nothing for 2 to 4 hours (typical load or unload time) AND ask your boss not to pay you for that time. Then, you'll have better perspective.
For a driver, time spent doing nothing, sitting around is the most stressful part of the work day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DisappointedScrosh - when CDC said vaccinated people could stop wearing masks, that was the point where I realized the government response wasn't just confused or sloppy but a downright scam together with the vaccine manufacturers.
Vaccination doesn't give the person a magic shield. Vaccinated people will still contract, carry, and spread the virus. They will also, in the majority of cases, fight the illness off without noticing they're infected (because of their boosted immune response to the virus).
So, telling vaccinated people they can remove the masks did two things. First, every who didn't want to wear a mask will take stop wearing it. That would normally be true, but in a the hyper political world we live in where a few politicians were stupid enough to make a virus political, it's especially true that certain people would stop wearing masks even without being vaccinated.
Second, all the people who did get a vaccine and stop wearing a mask are now out spreading the virus among themselves and the people who didn't get vaccinated but also stopped wearing masks.
The CDC recommendation was ostensibly designed to offer a carrot to encourage people to get vaccinated. What it actually did was increase the spread of the virus and perpetuate it!
Worse, after all that, 10% to 30% of vaccinated people will end up with breakthrough infections resulting in illness...keep in mind that the CDC said, "go ahead and take the mask off and continue spreading covid amongst yourselves!".
So, a policy of "get vaccinated or get get tested" is just stupid, discriminatory, inflammatory, and ultimately "feel good" policy (meaning you feel good that something is being done whether it actually helps or not).
A proper policy, if containing the virus and reducing transmission is the goal would be "get vaccinated and have weekly testing". Remember, vaccinated people still carry and transmit the virus. Remember also, up to 30% of vaccinated people will have a breakthrough infection. Remember finally that the vast majority of people who were exposed to covid never realized it because they were asymptomatic, just like vaccinated people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jerrysmith2088 - my dad was in law enforcement, industrial security, and personal protection throughout his career.
For a trained and practiced PROFESIONAL, using like force (an expandable baton vs a knife or bat, for example) may be viable and something a court could reasonably expect.
My dad would often get frustrated when cops would shoot people either unarmed, fleeing, or using a melee weapon. His thoughts were that if the professional cop didn't have the training, proficiency or wherewithal to use appropriate force, the cop was in the wrong job.
Heck, even POLICE, armed professionals aren't expected to use like force....and, at least in the US, basically have a license to kill.
As the recent incidents in Canada have shown, draconian gun laws don't prevent crime. They simply turn law abiding citizens into criminals when they try to defend themselves. Criminals don't care what the laws are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@fyr7343 Correction. Donetsk and Luhansk both voted for independence from Russia at the fall of the Soviet Union. They were both (as was Crimea) semi autonomous regions within Ukraine. People there didn't really care much what Ukraine OR Russia was doing. The status quo was fine.
There was no discrimination or persecution against Russian speakers until AFTER the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
And it was a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, not a separatist uprising. The original "separatists" were foreign criminals and anarchists which Russia transported to Ukraine and then supported with Russian special forces who trained them in basic tactics, use of captured equipment, and called in helicopter gunship support when Ukraine tried to respond.
I have a friend who lived in Donetsk. She fled to a city farther west and called the "separatists" (aka foreign Russian proxy fighters) t*rrorists. She was one of the Russian speakers you suggest wanted independence from Ukraine. Prior to 2022, she would tell you she was Russian. After February 2022, she was Ukranian and hates Russia for what they've done to her country, to her home, to her grandmother (killed by "separatist" artillery fire as they moved into town, similar to the current Russian tactic), to her friends who lived in Kharkiv, and for stealing her heritage by making it bad to be Russian.
THAT is the person you're suggesting wanted independence from Russia. People who didn't leave weren't "fighting for independence from Ukraine", they just didn't have resources to leave or believed the Russian propaganda on the TV saying "we're coming to help you!" (which was followed by artillery and then armed criminals and anarchists ranging through town).
As a bonus the first president of the DPR wasn't Russian OR Ukrainian. As I said, foreigners hoping to be the next Kadyrov or wanting an outlet for their criminal tendencies.
3
-
3
-
Trump didn't just surrender. Trump bent over and grabbed his ankles in front of Putin. Trump is evil. Lieutenant Hegseth is a naive idiot.
Trump thinks he's a Master Negotiator much as Putin fancies himself a Master Strategist. In Putin's eyes, Trump is weak and confirming Western weakness.
Edit 6:46 Hegseth, Trump, and President Elon didn't think this through. Europe needs to guarantee Ukraine's security with their troops, but the US is against Ukraine joining NATO and the US will not send troops to guarantee security.
First, if Ukraine is going to give mineral rights to anyone, it's going to be countries that help with security. Second, when Putin inevitably breaks the peace, NATO troops will be casualties and the US will be sending troops... Either to secure Ukraine or to fight Russia as Russia, emboldened by American weakness and disinterest in Europe, moves into European NATO countries.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
21:07 sadly, Ukraine tried the same thing, to join NATO because they knew one day Russia would be back. Ukraine was told, "someday" while the west was also, unofficially, telling Russia that Ukraine wouldn't be allowed into NATO as an appeasement to Russian fears of a European invasion of Russia.
Because of their history of being invaded, Russia has a built in paranoia even if it's unfounded in this age.
And, here we are today. The Ukrainians paying the price for the West trying to appease evil. And, STILL there is the appeasement mindset "don't want to upset Russia" (Biden with ATACMS, Scholz with Taurus). We learn slow.
Send Ukraine everything they need, and then some, so they can defeat Russia on the battlefield and the US and Europe don't have to risk our soldiers lives fighting inevitable Russian invasion of the Baltics should Russia prevail in Ukraine.
Get the war over with as quickly as possible saves the most lives, prevents the most destruction, and gets the world back to "normal" sooner.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
4:42 re, RF Kennedy claims Russia invaded Ukraine in good faith
Even Prigozhin, in his "truth propaganda" just pointed out that all of Russia's reasoning for invading Ukraine was nonsense, made up, lies or just wrong.
Also, for people who think Ukranian lives would be saved if Ukraine didn't have the resources and equipment to fight against Russia's invasion, realize that if Ukraine capitulated, surrendered, that every fighting age man would be executed (or castrated) and every woman of child bearing age would be either raped or married off to a Russian soldier as a war prize.
Russia would employ these measures both to punish the Ukranian people for resisting and embarrassing Russia as well as to mitigate the demographic crisis in Russia.
Russia's missile campaign against civilians and the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam are designed to punish the Ukrainian civilians for resisting as is Russian soldiers castrating Ukrainian POWs.
So, this "punishment campaign" and mindset of the Russians is already evidenced.
Withdrawing military aid to Ukraine and preventing them from defending themselves from unwarranted Russian aggression would be much, MUCH worse for Ukrainian people than allowing Ukraine to beat the Russians back out of Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The franchisee didn't just want the trademarked logos off the car, they wanted ANYTHING not part of the stock car removed, including interior items. The franchisee representative seems to be acting in a very unreasonable and not good faith manner, taking into account the low ball offer on a car that, having been rebuilt, could be put back in service by the franchisee.
Domino's corporate seems uninterested in the issue, other than the fact that the franchisee is so far doing more harm to the trademark than Sam.
And, getting to Sam, so far, he's just featured the car in his rebuild videos in a manner that doesn't violate trademark. The franchisee is threatening suit over potential uses that may not have occurred yet.
It seems like a better threat to make would be that of getting an injunction preventing Sam from driving it on public roadways, rather than threaten seizure. The car was legally transferred to the insurance company and then to Sam.
I wouldn't be surprised if that franchisee violated something in their contract with Domino's by letting the car go with the Domino's livery and modifications intact and wss trying to both avoid consequences of that AND get a cheap, functional pizza car (sort of double dipping on the insurance payout and their low ball offer).
Best of luck to samcrac on either keeping the car with use or getting a reasonable buy out offer.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@emazjassam2452 - Russia is already defeated. They've defeated themselves with a battle plan that didn't allow supply lines.
Everything that Russia had working and could spare is in play. The "reserves" still in Russia, near the border, were supposed to be relief forces, to replace the forces that went on first, allowing them to be pulled back and replenished.
The thing you need to realize is that Russia is geographically huge. Yes, they may have plenty more troops, but they are stationed elsewhere.
Unlike the US when we go invasioneering, Russia isn't protected by 2 oceans, a peaceful neighbor, and a weak neighbor.
Russia can't throw its entire army into the Ukraine invasion because, strategically, Russia must be prepared for a counterattack.
The irony is that Russia had a somewhat weak and peaceful neighbor until Russia invaded that neighbor in 2014.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sgilmour47 - You're missing the point. Veggies like to tout not eating animals because they're alive.
But animals are sentient!
DH Lawrence: I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
Simply put, animals feel, but they don't feel in the same way people do, in a way that we attribute to them, regardless, by anthropomorphizing.
Plants are different enough from YOU that you discount their reaction to stress as inconsequential. You don't put your own feelings on them, you don't empathize with them.
As I pointed out to another hypocrite earlier, veggies simply ignore plants' life because plants are so much different from us that it makes it acceptable to discount harming them.
I'm reminded of a funny scene in Farscape where Chriton discounts some plant life before his shipmate, Zahn, reminds him that she's a plant based lifeform.
Sure, that's fiction, but it uses comedy to highlight the point that veggies are OK killing plants because they're different enough from us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@oinka720 you're evaluation is on point. The most ironic, and sad, fact about the bullying and harassing of employees, literally a driver manager, safety manager, and HR (aka "firing department") manager sitting in the drivers' laps for the entire shift is that the driver facing cameras, designed to help improve safety by offering learning and training opportunities, are actually just ending up being what tips the scales in lawsuits where trucking companies are sued in civil court after a collision.
Several companies have begun removing them after the cameras cost them the lawsuit.
I'm not at all trying to promote any unsafe behavior, such as "using a cell phone while driving" or any "distracted" driving. However, the driver facing camera is itself a distraction to the driver and companies are trying to rely on these techno-crutches in lieu of hiring drivers who are experienced and can do things with safety and common sense in mind and then creating an environment where those drivers want to stay in the industry (instead of retire or move on to some other field).
It hurts every motorist's safety when the company is harassing and bullying drivers with no benefit to safety and not even the one primary goal of helping absolve the company during civil lawsuits just means good drivers get off the road if thru can't find another decent company to work for or get so fed up thru don't bother looking.
Yeah, management that has no understanding of the actual job is a problem a lot of companies across various industries or services have!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
12:57 there's no international maritime authority that could enforce an AIS requirement. Currently, ships are supposed to have it on all the time, unless there's a security reason to turn it off (such as possibly transiting waters where pirates operate). But, there's no authority to punish a ship captain, operator, or owner if it's turned off.
Also, regarding insurance, the Lloyd's paper mentions "properly capitalized insurance". Sure, a dark fleet ship might have insurance from a non standard source but is there any capital there, money or assets, for that insuror to actually pay, say if the vessel causes a spill or whatever incident.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ebaziuk - I don't know man. I had a friend who's fiance punched him (closed fist) in the face, in my presence. After she'd stormed off, I told him, "dude, you need to walk away now before you get hurt worse physically and financially."
The result? Our friendship was put on pause for 10 years and he went on to marry her before he finally got the point that the commentor you replied to did and he left her. If a guy catches a case of one-itis, they do stupid, self-destructive things.
Really it's society's beta male propaganda machine. Everything in media says if you love the girl and care about her, you get happily ever after. Even that commentor was trying to "get her help" while she's being abusive to him. Guys just aren't taught "take a look at how she feels about YOU and listen to her actions, not her words", unless they go seeking that information, usually after learning that the propaganda they've been taught isn't right...the hard way.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@seanyhide8155 Zalensky wants the military aid to make it untenable for Russia to remain in Ukraine. The only way there can be peace is if Russia leaves Ukraine or, if Ukraine is willing to give up territory for an actual peace, then it will have to come with actual guarantee of security, not the toothless sort of Budapest Memorandum that had only rainbows, sunshine, and hope as a deterrent.
In short, Ukraine fights until Russia withdraws (which they will do at some point, just as Russia withdrew from Georgia, Syria, and Afghanistan when their invasion faltered and became untenable) or Ukraine may give up some occupied territory if it's allowed into NATO.
The latter is less likely than the former. Putin is desperately hoping Trump will cut US aid and that Europe won't take its defense seriously because Russia can only keep up the current loss rate, on equipment, men, and economically for about another year. At that point, the tide will turn increasingly in Ukraine's favor if Russia continues to drag the war out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
0:28 the pickup truck is actually initiating the lane change before the Tesla. They both enter the lane at about the same time.
Both driver's are at fault for not acting to avoid the incident and they both could've prevented the collision (not "accident").
The Tesla driver admitted that he didn't know how the crash happened indicates that he didn't look over his right shoulder (or if he used only the mirror it wasn't properly adjusted) to ensure that the lane he was entering was clear.
The lessons: traffic is fluid. Just because a certain vehicle is in a certain lane and relative traffic position doesn't mean it will stay there or remain at the same speed.
When making lane changes, double check the blind spots. The rear quarter, especially passenger side rear, earned that nickname because it's easy to miss seeing a vehicle there. Had the pickup been a motorcycle, the Tesla driver would have a heavy conscience.
Just because a lane is clear when beginning a lane change doesn't mean it will remain clear. Look at the spot your moving to, look forward, look at the spot again, repeat until you've safely completed the lane change.
Every lane change is an opportunity for a collision. Also, the Tesla driver stated that his lane change was motivated by the drivers coming up behind him.
Two things: first, don't let other drivers dictate how you handle your vehicle. Second, don't be the kind of person that obstructs traffic, putting your vehicle in a position where other drivers will try to dictate how you should handle your vehicle.
0:43 autopilot...humans have proven, by and large, too stupid or irresponsible to properly operate vehicles. So, instead of evolving, we've designed computer programs to handle driving tasks for us. These programs are, apparently, as effective as the humans that programmed them.
Drive your car. Playing with the phone or other technology in the car can kill you or another driver.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1994: Ukraine gave up its Soviet Era nuclear deterrent, it's strategic bombers, and all ballistic missiles. Ukraine was given assurances that it's territorial integrity would be protected by the USA (which led the disarmament effort), the UK, and Russia.
2014: Russia invades Ukraine in a Red Dawn-esque paratrooper drop into Crimea as well as transporting criminals and anarchists from outside Ukraine to the eastern Ukrainian border and publicly calling them "separatists" but privately calling them "asymmetrical fighters". Neither the US nor UK recall making any assurances of protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity.
2022: Emboldened by Western inaction, Russia begins its full scale, 3 prong, 3 day "special military operation". Ukraine is at war for its survival for over 2 years with nearly a quarter of that time military aid was halted by Western politics and the American Republican Party assisting Russia. President Ronald Reagan rolls over in his grave.
2025: Every nation on Earth realizes that they either have a nuclear deterrent or are officially member of an organization that has a nuclear deterrent. Otherwise they have no international security or territorial integrity.
Beyond 2025: Ukraine eventually evicts Russia. Ukraine is either admitted to NATO or they begin a uranium enrichment program.
Yes, North Korea, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc were all paying attention to how much " assurances" helped Ukraine.
The United States has inadvertently initiated a global nuclear arms race.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This comment shows just how normal being totally plugged in with everything at our fingertips or just a voice command away.
You are shocked at the lack of coverage when this war has more real-time footage than any in history. The problem you're experiencing isn't a lack of coverage.
The problem is that there's so much video footage available that it's impossible to sift through it all and it would be very disturbing to any normal person to do so. The death and destruction you're seeing is real. The purple, rigor mortis of dead bodies isn't make up and the wounds aren't special effects.
We've seen more video come out of Ukraine in 1 year than came out of Iraq and Afghanistan in 20 years.
Then, there's the misinformation footage labeled as being from the current 2022 Ukraine war but really from other areas or prior time frame that adds to information deluge.
If Ukraine itself isn't forthcoming with official footage and information, there's a reason. While we may be witnessing this war in nearly real-time and consuming it as we would other, normal media, this isn't a reality TV show or web drama. It's a war. There's a thing called operational security. Ukraine doesn't want to win the Geraldo Award for giving away troop positions, strategies, and tactics. You'll notice that, often, battlefield footage is weeks or months old.
With the proliferation of mobile devices that are more powerful than supercomputers of the 80s and with better video recording capability than ever before, trying to maintain operational security is a real and important challenge.
If you aren't receiving the coverage you want, that's a good thing for Ukraine's operational security. That said, there's plenty of video out there, some of it unpleasant, to say the least, if you look for it.
In the meantime, I highly recommend the youtube channel Perun. He's got great, in depth power point presentations relating to various topics of the war. The hour long presentations make excellent background or commute listening if don't have a hour to be engrossed in information while staring at power point slides.
Combat Veteran Reacts also provides useful daily updates, in addition (unfortunately) to spiels about his war news website and he often starts talking nonsense when he gets out of his wheelhouse of small unit issues and daily updates. Those latter 2 issues he's great at.
Jake Broe provides almost daily updates with an admitted bias against Russia (it would be difficult for anyone who isn't a barbarian to not be biased against Russia). But he doesn't hide negatives impacting Ukraine. He also includes human interest snippets in addition to war and political updates. He also doesn't waste your time trying to sell you anything.
Joe Blogs has a lot detailed, if drab, information on the economic effects of the war. Perun probably does a better job of boiling down the facts in an easy to digest presentation.
There's plenty of coverage out there. I'm shocked if your comment about "coverage being lacking" wasn't sarcasm.
Regards...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That means they either overcharged massively on premiums, denied many legitimate healthcare cost claims (THAT PEOPLE PAID PREMIUMS FOR!), or BOTH.
Privatized healthcare, Americans' health AS A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS is a failed experiment. We pay the most for healthcare, we have insurance automatically deny claims (which causes conditions to worsen, become more expensive and debilitating or even deadly), and we rank 49th in global life expectancy (and we're getting WORSE every year). The healthcare companies, for profit hospitals, insurance companies, CEOs, and shareholders are stealing life from people to make profit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
START is the Strategic Arma Reduction Treaty.
Estimates figure Russia has about 6,000 nuclear warheads.
So, Russia pulling out of the treaty is irrelevant for 2 reasons.
First, with 6,000 nuclear warheads stockpiled, any small reduction is virtually a non reduction.
Second, and most importantly, Russia proved to itself and the world in February 2022 that either you have a strong nuclear deterrent or you have no territorial integrity.
Basically, the world is in a waiting pattern for the next Russian leader, who will hopefully be more reasonable than Putin and understand that the days of Russian Empire building are gone AND that it's OK because nobody (except, maybe China) has any desire to invade Russia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Patrick-857 interesting info.
Supposedly, it's the same "space steel", as Elon likes to call it, used on the space X rockets. However, don't they bathe them in something while they're awaiting launch to prevent the corrosion?
It's still amazing that DeLorean used a steel that wouldn't have the corrosion issue, if it was harder to work and more expensive to shape. Of course, Elon is all about making money, so cutting cost isn't unexpected.
As for 304 having less strength, that's probably not really an issue. If it's crashed, the body panels on any newer vehicle are throw away and it's structural components that absorb the impact. In that regard, 304 might also offer better crumple zone performance if it's less strong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@svenvdv2880 - considering that they would need to go that way and find out what happened to the troops that would be expected to be with it, trying to destroy it was the right call if they weren't sure it was abandoned or the crew dead. The autocannon on that thing, even if the vehicle is immobilized, could ruin infantry.
I do think that they went about it in more of a brave way than a smart way. Had the gunner still been coherent, the flimsy cover they had, that little out building and trees, would've been shredded by the autocannon.
Firing repeatedly from the same spot, with weapons that didn't have enough effective range wasn't really doing anything except telling the enemy where they are, had anyone been paying attention.
As I said, it basically turned into a live fire training. They learned that the smaller RPGs didn't have the range, at least not through the tree branches, to hit that far.
In a later vid, it turns out to be a Spetsnaz or VDV unit that was with the BMP. They were holed up in a house. Had they maintained the support of the BMP, getting to them would've been a lot tougher. They seemed to basically be in survival mode, not trying to hold anything in the village but just trying to stay alive. Maybe expecting help to arrive?
I think that's what the BMP was trying to do. Suppress by firing and then trying to back away before getting hit. Or, maybe they were trying to cover multiple approaches? They just did it in a very predictable way and the Ukrainians, fortunately, did have a weapon that could get them. If they only had the shorter range stuff, that might've been really bad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In reply to a comment somebody made, "Ya, arrest them all," I replied:
Yes, I agree.
However, it should be a 2 way street. Arrest the federal agents also and let them go on trial for violating local laws, illegal detentions, failure to identity as law enforcement, operating out of jurisdiction, and whatever else they may be doing.
Yes the local police, politicians and state government didn't handle the situation correctly. They didn't manage to balance quelling the situation without violating rights.
That doesn't give the federal government to invade the state. It's the same thing we got wrong in Iraq. We gave those people freedom whether they wanted it, could handle it or not; forcibly shoved it down their throats.
Now, the federal government is forcing itself on a state, intervening in local matters without the request or approval of the state. That's a legitimate question of State's Rights.
Sure, the state leadership may be a failure, but it's up to the voters of that state to change the leadership, not the federal government.
Ironically, our "law and order" president sees no problem taking charge in this matter but in the greater problem of the covid19 pandemic he flatly said that it isn't the responsibility of the federal government to take action.
Citizens in Red, Republican states should be even more concerned because if the precedent is set that the federal government can invade a state, then there's nothing stopping a Democrat president from doing the same thing.
Recently there's been discussion about 2nd Amendment Rights. This boils down to the same thing: should the federal government be allowed to force itself on a state?
2A people, if you don't want the ATF to come arbitrarily grab your guns via a presidential order, you also don't want the ICE, ATF, FBI, etc invading Oregon.
2
-
2
-
43:06 re, Ukrainian feelings toward Russians
Jake, the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact on average Ukrainians was minor compared to the current war situation.
I have a friend who is Russian speaking that fled Donetsk during the 2014 invasion to a more western part of Ukraine (and lost her grandmother to artillery fired by the Russian proxy fighters because grandma wouldn't leave her home).
Even that most Ukrainians were unaffected by the 2014 invasion, my friend said that her and her elementary school aged daughter faced discrimination because they were Russian.
(Up until February 2022, my friend would say she was Russian, not Ukrainian, because of family heritage and she didn't really start learning Ukrainian until the 2022 invasion when speaking Russian, BEING Russian, became a no-no. Since February, she describes herself as Ukrainian, not because of discrimination but because she, like most Ukrainians, became incensed or pissed off by Russia's barbaric behavior and especially the destruction of cities through artillery bombardment...primarily Russian speaking cities where she still had friends and family.)
My point being that there was an unwelcome feeling from Ukrainians towards Russians in 2014. Now, it's more like hatred. Unless the Russian immigrants would already speak Ukrainian or English and have work skills, particularly construction or something else immediately valuable to Ukraine, I don't see Ukrainians welcoming Russians for quite a while.
In my Russian, now Ukrainian, friend's own words, "there's just something wrong with them (the Russians)".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The OTHER thing to consider is that wherever Russia is occupying Ukrainian territory they need security troops in the rear areas to maintain security of supply lines and other aspects of the rear (barracks, local supplies like rations, etc).
Whatever number you come up with for defending a front line, let alone trying to push an attack, add another 20% or 30% for keeping the occupied area secured. THEN, figure in reserve and off duty troops to react to threats against and rotate off the front. Ideally, that would be double the combined previous numbers, in Russia's case.
To actually make the invasion work, the other comment about needing 1 million men is probably reasonable. But, add to that Russia needing to keep forces at home both from a strategic level to prevent invasion into Russian territory (however unlikely) and for training, AND to help the internal military force (separate from the army) maintain order in the event areas try to cecede from the Federation or just general unrest, protests, etc.
Russia would probably need close to 2 million full time, active duty, trained military personnel (across all their several branches, including 2 or 3 "home defense" type armies) to actually succeed in Ukraine, while not falling apart at home.
Putin is simply hoping that the West gets tired of aiding Ukraine and that he gets SOMETHING as a reward and can then try again in another 5 or 10 years once everyone, except Ukraine and Poland has forgotten about the Russian threat.
As for what's required for Ukraine to prevent Russia from making a successful breakthrough of the front, the numbers of troops are much less.
First, Ukraine doesn't need to secure rear areas from internal threat other than what security thru might normally have around military bases.
Second, and more importantly, Ukraine is benefiting from Western intelligence that will help them determine where Russia may be grouping troops to try a break through. Ukraine can then simply shift to meet the threat.
We somewhat saw this in Soledar and are definitely seeing it in Bakhmut. If Russia advances, it's not necessarily a bad thing in the short term if the cost is very high for little gain or they gain nothing of strategic value (like Soledar). "Winning the battle but losing the war" is the adage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SirDella - that guy is a troll, I wouldn't reply to him. He never responded to me pointing out that one of the tech industry's biggest claims against right to repair is danger.
Apparently, there's more voltage in your iPhone than in your AC.
He keeps going back to the argument of "IP, R&D is expensive" as the only argument.
When, in fact, this isn't an argument that the industry leans heavily on (because R&D and IP cost is obviously baked into the $1000 price tag of modern personal electronics).
Remember the best way to handle a troll is simply don't feed them. That guy isn't reasonable and he isn't interested in logic, reasoning, or hearing your viewpoint.
Heck, he probably already believes in and supports right to repair. He's actually just here to argue since it gives him free and easy validation.
It's like a girl at a bar wanting free drinks just for showing up. Let her get her own drinks and let @Aegis get his/her own validation by instigating silly arguments somewhere else.
Thanks for your comment and your example of how rewarding, economical, easy, and safe it can be to fix your own stuff when the manufacturer is reasonable and values their customers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@6789uiop - unfortunately, unless Ukraine also gets Gripen, Typhoon, or Rafale those F-16s are going to end up playing same game of Frogger with Russian R37 long range air to air missiles that Ukraine's current jets play whenever Ukraine tries using them.
Despite the F-16 being an awesome dogfighter, it's primary role will be close air support and Gripen or Typhoon, with Meteor air to air missile, would be required to deal with Russian Mig 31 and Su 34 that hide behind Russian ground based air defenses and out of range of the F-16's aim 120 amraam missile.
Try to send a F-16s after the Russian planes and they'll have R37, S300, S400, and Pantsir missiles thrown at them before the Russians just fly farther away, denying the F-16 an opportunity to attack them...if the F-16s could even survive the missile barrage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@perro626 - You are correct, on the face of it. However, inflation isn't as simple as you imply.
HUGE amounts of magical money (probably more than ever before) were thrown into the economy after 2008. Inflation remained very low, with fears of DEFLATION due to the fact that people weren't spending money (because they couldn't borrow any for bigger purchases and unemployment was rising).
The thing about the current situation and inflation is timing. Why is inflation happening now if it wasn't happening earlier in the decade since the financial crisis of 2008, when all that money was being pulled out of thin air?
It's a great time to use the supply chain problems and demand for items (demand side inflation) as cover for increasing costs (supply side inflation) that are actually being used to cushion businesses from the upcoming increases in worker pay (which hasn't actually occurred yet in many places).
Essentially, companies are preemptively raising prices to account for the predicted increase in worker costs. Doing this before those costs actually hit allows the consumer to adjust to a new normal before prices again rise when wages go up.
Your argument that more money is going into the economy (in the form of increased pay) hasn't actually happened yet in many places. So, why inflation now?
In fact, if you really want to get interesting, the government is trying to curtail the quantitative easing that it's still doing, meaning LESS money will be flowing into the economy at the federal reserve level for inter bank lending.
So, again why inflation now?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PineApple-bs8rt - Hello, Russian bot! Thanks for replying and fueling the algorithm!
For humans who might run across the bot's comment, Russia does not have a manpower advantage, in general, and certainly not the necessary manpower to attack.
The general rule of thumb is that an attacking force wants at least a 3 to 1 advantage. However, that is assuming training, experience, and equipment parity.
Contrary to the bot's statement, Russia doesn't enjoy parity, nevermind superiority, in any of these metrics.
Russia gutted its training command before mobilization in order to try and fill combat units. Then, when mobilization began, not only was Russia trying to train new recruits with no prior military experience (for the lucky ones who didn't immediately go to the front lines), it was also trying to rebuild its training command. Removing experienced troops from the front lines to do training directly impacts the capability of units on the front.
The lack of NCO structure further negatively impacts training in both Russia and the front line units.
This lack of training is evident even in the way armored units are acting in such a way that is throwing away vehicles to Ukrainian artillery. Foot soldiers are suffering the same fate.
While both sides certainly are taking casualties, it's a MUCH more dangerous situation for the Russians who are often attempting to cross open ground and where Russians don't even enter into shooting range of Ukrainian positions before being wiped out by artillery. Ukraine has the benefit of fighting from prepared defenses and being able to fall back, forcing the Russians to repeat the cycle.
Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel for personal equipment and doesn't have artillery ammunition supply to maintain its previous rate of fire.
Saying Russia has advanced equipment in great supply on the battlefield is just silly.
The sad fact is that Russia is trying to get the mobilized troops killed before they have to feed them too much and hoping the human wave can overwhelm Ukrainian positions.
Russia is probably needing over 10 to 1 advantage in manpower to force Ukraine to give up ground, as described above.
That means Russia is probably suffering losses at about 5 to 8 times that of Ukraine where Ukraine does fall back and suffering casualties at over 10 to 1 where Ukraine doesn't fall back.
The numbers are truly staggering. In a month, Russia is losing more soldiers killed in action than in 10 years of their fighting in Afghanistan.
Russia is on pace lose all soldiers they mobilize within 12 months.
Without a stop to the fighting, there is no way Russia can rebuild a training system and properly equip troops without losing ground at the front.
Russia really is bleeding itself out. Any Russian troops that aren't dead by April when Ukraine looks at going on the offensive will be worn out mentally and physically from malnourishment and surviving through the cold and horrors of their march across open ground.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Having watched a vid of an American volunteer working with Ukrainian raiders using Humvees to do fast in and out assaults on Russian positions, I think Ukraine would use the Bradley in this role also with its ability to fire on the move and better cross country ability and armor than the Humvee.
In the engagement I saw, the group of several Humvees were primarily tasked with eliminating a Russian BTR that was believed to be in the village. They rode in using .50 cal to suppress the just waking up Russians while the "Anti tank" Humvee was going to use a Javelin from the 50 cal cupola to hit the BTR and then high tail it out. Later, with the BTR knocked out, the Ukrainian infantry would advance on the town.
It turns out that the BTR wasn't there and the Humvees were in and out in 5 minutes with a couple RPG almost being fired at them (yay 50 cal).
However, this could be done much safer with a Bradley. One could be used as a command or spotting vehicle both to use thermal and laser to look for and range any vehicle targets or suppress infantry at range while another 1 or 2 could move into the town to to knock out a vehicle if there wasn't line of sight from outside the town. "Town" being a small collection of houses, basically.
At that time, and since they learn slow probably now, Russia didn't keep a night watch and the vehicles were unmanned and parked near wherever the men were sleeping.
There's a couple things to consider. First, not every Russian position has a tank defending it. BMP and BTR are being used as "heavy weapons squads" to give the infantry more firepower as well as mobility.
Using a Bradley to knock out a BTR or BMP is a heck of a lot better than using a Humvee with Javelins being passed up to the 50 cal gunner who needs to take a shot while taking small arms fire (assuming the Russian IFV isn't awake yet) from the open cupola.
Also, that raid could eliminate the vehicle threats while also using American doctrine of several Bradley to dismount their troops secure the area. Essentially, combining what the Humvees and later foot infantry were doing into one go.
The guy who left the comment about a Bradley being ineffective because even tanks aren't effective is just dumb. Ukraine has been using its BTR-4 as well as the Humvee raid described above to knock out Russian armor in ambush or raid.
With artillery ammo starting to be at a premium, being able to engage targets with safe direct fire capability as well as move infantry with fire support will become critical, especially when Ukraine is on the offensive.
Bradley had growing pains, for sure. However, it does overmatch the BMP, BTR, and T-62 antiques Russia is pressing into service.
Also note, that the Bradley uses the engine in front as "armor" incase it does take a tank round to the face. I haven't looked into if that design feature has saved any crew in our various invasioneering adventures.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@puppiesarepower3682 - You're, right, if you let her do it on her terms. If you provide it, tell her those pants make her butt look big, for example, then it's on your terms. She gets drama and an emotional roller-coaster, things she likes or is drawn to, whether she realizes it or not.
Women crave emotional stimuli. That can be triggering good or bad emotions. Either way, we play games with other people in our lives, playing them with a woman you like can help keep her chasing you. She requires drama. If you provide it, you control what it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's like any sandbox multiplayer game. You attempt to do something and then have adventures based on whether other people try to help or prevent you from doing whatever you set out to do.
There's no story in the multiplayer verse. The campaign story is Squadron 42, a companion single player game that's nearing finished.
There are basic missions that players can do with increasing progression with mission successes. Mission types include bounty hunting (blowing up ships) package delivery (including picking up and dumping bodies from a crime scene to scrub it), escort a ship missions, help protect a stranded ship while they make repairs, missions to clear pirates or military out of underground bunkers in first person combat, and so on.
You're basically trying to earn money to buy or upgrade your ship and gear. So, you can do missions or mine or pirate (although, very few people actually pirate to get ransom, they blow you up) or accept jobs from other players.
I hired on as gunner on a capital ship (hammerhead) as the owner made a run to the then secret and hard to find drug lab. I've hired players to give me a ride when my ship got blown up or when I needed help recovering a ship that I had game issue while using. The game has a beacon system where players offer jobs to other players and pay them for it.
If you find a profitable route, you can run cargo on your own. There was a player built website dedicated to helping people find profitable routes.
I rarely play because the game is far from even a normal "early access" quality as far as reliability and quality of life, but when I do play, my main gameplay loop is finding cool places to make wallpaper screenshots. You can try it out for free several times a year during "free fly" events where a limited set ships are allowed to players who've created an account but not purchased a game package.
The next such event will probably be around November 18th. So, mark your calendar, create an account and download the large game before then (account creation and download costs nothing...I think you can download it without buying a package outside of the free fly times). Nov 18th should be the start of the annual International Aerospace Expo, which should provide interesting content both from the developer and content creators.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
22:26 ask those people if they were supportive of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our actions in Iraq led to a Civil War and Iraq becoming friendly with Iran (instead of a staunch enemy under Saddam).
We spent 20 years training, supplying, and equipping the Afghani military so that it could...surrender immediately when the Taliban came down from the mountains.
We were in those 2 ungrateful countries, jamming our fingers in their pies, without invitation, to give them freedom and democracy whether they wanted it or not.
We did that to help ensure US security by eliminating the Taliban and the supposed WMD of Iraq that could find their way into the hands of "terrorizers".
Sending aid to Ukraine is the same as the intent of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan EXCEPT we're not risking American lives, the Ukrainians are fighting a civil war among themselves for control of their country, the Ukrainians are fighting Russia, which is also an enemy of the United States (with Russian TV presenters calling for Jihad against the US, among other more subtle activities). Further, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is a European country and aspires to join the EU and NATO and become an actual ally.
Aid to Ukraine is important because they are fighting the same fight we did in 1776. We had significant help from France. How great would it be if we were still paying the tea tax because France didn't think it was important to help us.
Then, you can tell them the things Jake pointed out about Russia stealing Ukrainian children, trying to commit genocide, using rape as a war weapon, executing civilians both as the Russians enter an area and as they're forced back out, etc.
2
-
2
-
@Rivenburg-xd5yf - some people had been flown to Lackland AFB in San Antonio because of the airbase's medical and housing facilities that could be used for quarantine.
Quarantine is supposed to be 2 weeks. They let a person out because they "felt fine". The next day, after the person had visited a food court at a nearby mall, the person returned to quarantine with symptoms.
Now, this person actually tested negative, but all negative really means is "not positive", the body hasn't started making antibodies against the virus yet.
These tests look for antibodies, not the virus itself. So, untrained personal combined with an "I feel fine" got that sick person out of quarantine.
The mall ended up closed for a day for sanitization.
People are really showing how selfish we are, just like during Ebola when a lady who didn't want to stay on home quarantine simply went about her routine after returning from Africa. The government is showing how woefully unprepared they are to act quickly and sensibly to prevent spread of a pandemic.
If covid19, which is proving highly transmissisible had Ebola or Spanish Flu like violence and fatality, we'd all be fkd.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thinkharder9332 I commend you on your dissection of the m4 mk18 and DMR vs XM7 weight issue.
But, dude. You really jumped into the deep end without even bothering to realize if you were near the pool.
You entirely missed the point. I wasn't trying to sell the mk18. I was pointing out that the XM7 is very heavy and over equipped for a standard issue rifle to the point that it's nearly the weight of 2 individual weapons. I was also using the 2 weapons vs XM7 to highlight the fact that the XM7 is the "do everything...at the price of being good at nothing" option compared to 2 weapons that are good at what they're designed to do.
You cannot argue that:
- a 14 lbs rifle is going to be good at cqb because it has a short barrel
-an inaccurate or inconsistent weapon with 6 MOA accuracy is going to be good at 800 meters because the bullet has more energy and penetration
-suppressors and a heavy, complex optic (instead of lighter optic) are wastes of weight that would be better served as ammo weight in a general issue use
-excessive wear of components that compromise reliability is a direct hazard to troops engaged in firefight
Well, you COULD argue those things but you wouldn't have logic on your side.
You also seem very hung up on ir designators and suppressors. Again, you're missing the point that if you're going to carry the extra weight of XM7 you can carry 2 lighter, less Gucci'd weapons for the same weight. Here, you go into the argument of how a typical mk18 would be equipped. You completely missed the point that I was using the bare weapon as an example of a lighter, smaller weapon with a 10 inch barrel that will do the close range work much better than the XM7.
If you want to really do the mental exercise, realize that if you were going to carry 2 weapons, you would limit the accessories you would equip to what's absolutely necessary to keep weight down and allow for more ammunition weight. Since you know a lot about what troops are equipped with, you know they will be taking much more than standard load out ammunition. While you're on that train of thought, keeping to essentials, ask yourself if the XM7 weight is essential.
Further, since we're on thought exercises, ask yourself if you would take an ir aiming device into battle over another magazine if you were fighting a near peer enemy using NVG instead of going against dudes in sandals. There's a trade off to that ir device and no trade off to using the weight for ammo. Obviously, I'm not going to affect a change in how troops are equipped, but it's worth pointing out if we're talking about smart weight.
My argument is that the XM7 is not smart weight. It has less accuracy, consistency, and longevity than systems that already exist like M110 or SCAR H (2 examples) if you want a battle rifle that can be effective at ranges beyond 5.56. The XM7 is a hodge podge of conflicting compromises to achieve "1 size fits all" on paper. Think "littoral combat ship program" and you get the idea. I was using the example of a short barrel m4 variant combined with a DMR as being a similar weight with much greater capability to highlight the conflict of compromise that is the XM7.
Good discussion. Cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You can have different people (strangers) give him high value treats (bits of hot dog, chicken liver, roasted chicken meat, etc). Also, don't expect things to happen quickly with dogs. Trainers make it look easy and fast, but it doesn't work that way, really.
Beckman's dog training channel has episodes on this that give practical training advice. Cesar is mostly for entertainment, even if some of his basic principles are sound.
Beckman's dog training and Hamilton dog training offer good, free help in addition to their paid courses. Hamilton goes into deep dives on stuff that might be harder to listen to if you're not patient.
Also, young dogs go through natural fear periods. Trying to break your pup of fear if he's in a fear period might be counter productive. I HIGHLY recommend searching beckman's age appropriate dog training. He goes over what you can expect at what age, up to 18 months, and what training to focus on. Done of this is counterintuitive... Like don't overexpose your young dog to the human world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, Napster, formerly Rhapsody (before Rhapsody bought the Napster name), allows me to listen to what I want without ads, when I want via streaming, while providing "thumbprint" suggestions and curated plays lists and offers download of most titles (I can't say what % are downloadable, because I just stream as there's almost always connection).
However, the situation Louis describes, where I may lose connectivity, which sometimes happens when traveling, the app switches to offline mode and would play tracks that I had downloaded.
Yes, I pay $10 or something per month (actually, I pay the yearly fee to save a few bucks), but I legally get the functionality you're asking for without risking going into bad neighborhoods and while rewarding both the service for providing the service and the music creators for creating it.
If you just want something for free, think about how that would be for work that you do.
Otherwise, if you're looking for a decent service that allows download and offline use along with search for whatever you're looking for, look into Napster.
If what you're looking for isn't there, suggest your artist add their work to the service.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
9:06 re, US can't do everything
Man, we dicked around in Afghanistan for 20 years doing everything for them, funding them, leading patrols and ops because their army was corrupt and riddled with lazy, scared, or traitorous troops.
The ungrateful Afghanis didn't have the desire, will, or heart to fight for their own freedom from the oppressive Taliban.
Ukraine, on the other hand is doing the hard work of fighting and dying for their freedom.
So, while it's true that the US can't do everything forever, the United States isn't doing everything in Ukraine. The US is doing the easy part of sending equipment and funds to support Ukrainians who are doing the hard part, paying for freedom in blood.
At the very least, our assistance to Ukraine is being received by a grateful ally who isn't requiring US troops to be at risk.
2
-
@rodh1404 - there is an inherent problem with using carbon fiber in a submersible.
Anyone here is probably aware that carbon fiber has been used in aerospace and automotive uses for decades. So, why not a submersible?
In an automotive application, carbon fiber is able to be used in applications that leverage its great tensile strength to weight ratio.
In aerospace, carbon fiber is able to leverage its strength against expansion forces. A passenger plane will have its passenger compartment pressurized at about 12 psi, slightly less than normal atmospheric pressure at sea level. At cruising altitude, the outside atmospheric pressure is about 4 psi.
The pressure inside the airplane is pushing out against the lower pressure outside. This is carbon fiber under expansion stress.
In a submersible carbon fiber is exposed to its weakness against compression forces. The pressure inside the sub is 12 to 15 psi. The pressure outside the sub, at the depth of the Titanic is around 5,000 psi (yes, thousand).
So, carbon fiber, used in a submersible is fighting against its own weakness under compression forces and having to deal with both MUCH greater pressure differentials and the greater wear from compression/expansion cycling.
Here's where things get really ugly for carbon fiber in an application where there is no "off ramp". In other words, if a problem develops during use, you can't simply surface the way a car can stop or a plane can make a much quicker descent.
Unlike Steel and Titanium alloys which will have a known stress fatigue limit where stress cycles below the limit shouldn't cause a failure, carbon fiber (and aluminum) have no such limit and will acrue fatigue each and every stress cycle.
As we saw above, the type of pressure differential and aggressive compression and expansion cycling carbon fiber goes through when diving deep is insane compared to what it goes through in aviation and automotive uses. Again, those uses cater to the strong points of the material while a compression (as in a submersible) use is fighting against a weakness of the material from the start.
As you point out, aside from cutting it open, there's no current way to determine the structural integrity of carbon fiber the way we have processes to examine metals without destroying them.
The Titan was using an interesting, experimental way to try and measure strength of the carbon fiber pressure hull.
Based on the landing gear appearing mostly undamaged, it's initially suspected that the Titan dropped the gear to try and add buoyancy and surface quicker. That might indicate that the system worked and did detect a problem with the hull.
However, this merely tells us that a problem is happening "now". We already know that the hull will lose integrity on every dive /surface cycle. We KNOW carbon fiber will fail.
Knowing "it's happening NOW," isn't useful if you can't quickly get above a depth where a critical failure is imminent AND where humans can surface without suffering ill effects from a rapid ascent if they are able to escape the vehicle if failure is imminent. Atmospheric pressure increases much more rapidly diving under the sea than it does rising into the sky. This is why you could jump out of a plane at 30,000 ft and be ok if you have a working parachute.
You can't get out of a submersible at 300 feet and rapidly ascend without risking your life due to how compressed nitrogen interacts with body tissue as the pressure is rapidly reduced.
So, knowing in real time that there's a problem does no good if there's nothing you can do about it. The fact that a sub can experience different amounts of fatigue on different dives makes tracking and having a pro active maintenance program difficult and expensive if it's going to err on the side of safety.
Basically, while it MIGHT someday be possible to use lightweight carbon fiber in a deep sea submersible, doing it safely in a repeated use program (what OceanGate was hoping) would probably be just as expensive as going with Titanium in the first place.
2
-
@GravityAnalyticaLLC - that's the point thought, a thing CAN be done, but that's not what OceanGate wanted.
OceanGate wanted to do the thing cheap enough to be able to turn a profit through a low enough ticket price to encourage enough business volume.
Right out the gate, their business goal, volume, is at odds with using materials that don't have a fatigue limit (materials with a fatigue limit that keep stress below the limit won't degrade much, if at all, during stress cycles).
OceanGate: "We want a cheap enough, light enough vehicle to continually make trips using the same vehicle."
Engineers: "You want titanium or steel alloys."
OceanGate: "No. It needs to be cheaper and lighter!"
Engineer: "Cheaper in the short or long term?"
OceanGate: "Short term! We need to get this business running!"
Engineer: "Right, carbon fiber will do... For a while."
OceanGate: "Great! Wait, for how long, though?"
Engineer: "Duno. It's carbon fiber, mate, not titanium or steel."
OceanGate: "Great! We'll innovate around it!"
June 18, 2023: OceanGate "innovating around it".
Basically, doing it right would be prohibitively expensive to a for profit deep sea tourism business. Either you need steel or titanium or you need to replace the entire vessel if using materials with no fatigue limit at an overly safe schedule that would prevent the known fatigue from compromising the hull (realistically, that's probably a dive or 2, not the 20 something that Titan was at, counting all its aborted runs that were stopped early for other problems, hello "red flag!")
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Voicing support now for Ukraine joining NATO when it qualifies tells Putin and other Russian power players that Russia cannot win in Ukraine.
Remember, Ukraine doesn't currently qualify for NATO membership. So, voicing support has no downside and won't lead to Ukraine immediately joining NATO.
Ukraine can't be considered for NATO membership until after the war is over and Russia has been expelled from Ukrainian territory.
Voicing support simply tells Russia that Ukraine's friends will help it to achieve those 2 conditions.
The US has a confused foreign policy. NATO membership for Ukraine is the ONLY way we don't have a repeat of this. There will be another narcissistic, megalomaniac, sociopath dictator of Russia (source: history). He will invade Ukraine "because it was there." (Humans' "good reason" for doing anything.)
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and other former Soviet states were seeking NATO protection from the inevitable return of Russia, Ukraine was unofficially told "someday" while at the same time Russia was unofficially told "Ukraine won't be allowed into NATO" as a form of appeasement and to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine.
The theory being that if Russia is assured Ukraine won't join NATO then Russia won't have reason to invade Ukraine. Of course, Russia doesn't need a REASON, other than "it's there".
AND, let's not forget that it was the US of Fkn A, beacon of freedom and democracy around the world, that led the effort to remove Ukraine's nuclear deterrent.
I'm sure Ukraine is well aware of just how solid US "assurances" are... Especially considering we just cost the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers who were defending Avdiivka when the US flippantly decided to not send aid for 7 months while Ukraine was defending itself from the invasion that caused by lack of a nuclear deterrent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@i9erek - I agree that it's a shady practice of employers who have actual employees as delivery drivers to charge a delivery fee and not pass that on to the driver who is usually paid tip minimum wage. In these cases, the employer is absolutely not telling the driver that they work for the person receiving the order, at least not any more than any tipped waiter would be working for the people at their tables. The employer absolutely expects the driver to take every order even if it's to a known bad customer (I don't just mean bad tippers, I've had people try to get free stuff by calling the restraunt trying to say me or the cook messed up their order).
Door Dash, Favor, Uber Eats are different than pizza, Chinese, or most other restraunts that, pre-covid, had their own delivery drivers. Those drivers are not working for Door Dash, Favor, or Uber Eats. The delivery service, aka broker, is up charging on menu items and charging a delivery fee, and possibly charging the person placing the order a monthly fee (potentially in lieu of delivery fee) in order to earn a profit. Some of the delivery fee is going to the driver. I'd imagine all of the up charge on menu items is the Service's overhead and a portion of the delivery fee is kept as profit and part paid to the delivery driver.
I've only worked for pizza places and a restraunt years ago and don't know exactly how current delivery service contractor's are paid. But, I'm going to bet a big part of whether they beat minimum wage, especially after business related expenses (car, gas, insurance, health insurance, etc) will come down to tips being good or bad.
One interesting note on "fair pay" in delivery employees is that the restraunt I'd worked at paid delivery drivers a tip mimmum, wage plus a % of the order, and we kept tips but had to pay a certain amount to the kitchen staff (the waiters also had to pay that but didn't get a % of order and they generally had higher tips).
It worked out really well because if the restraunt was making good money on a $30 order, I was also getting part of that as a bonus, essentially to make sure I took care handling the food, was prompt, and in case I got stiffed I knew I wasn't out cold.
Sadly, most businesses vastly undervalue the "internal customer", aka employee and prefer to minimize payroll expense to put more in their own pocket instead of pay for quality employees who will increase business profitability by encouraging repeat business and word of mouth recommendation growth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zachlevi8565 - The USA doesn't target the house, except in rare occasions where high ranking terrorists are surrounding themselves at all times with civilians.
However, the Russian army either doesn't have the equipment or training to be accurate with their artillery attacks and simply says, "whatever, hit all the area and hopefully we hit the intended target."
Collateral damage in any case is terrible. But, in Russia's case, it's intentional. When they've been unable to break through Ukrainian defenses, particularly in Kharkiv and Mariupol, and even Kiev, the Russians have launched indiscriminate attacks, knowing they'd hit civilians and hoping that would demoralize or confuse the defenders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It means the Biden administration is pissed off that Putin hijacked Bidens term with the war taking focus instead of all the social justice warrior-ing and Constitution subverting that Team Biden had planned.
That said, I'm glad that Team Biden remembered that Russia is an enemy. Most "Republicans" have forgotten. Fighting this war now is cheaper than fighting it later when Russia would inevitably attack Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland next, if Ukraine were to fall.
Putin had been focused on rebuilding a Russian Empire for at least as far back as Iraq 2 when the Cheney administration dismissed Putin's warnings to Dubya to not invade Iraq. Putin has wanted to rebuild an Empire strong enough that the West wouldn't dismiss Russia.
Make no mistake, if Putin isn't stopped and evicted from Ukraine and unequivocally told, "No," he'll try again after rebuilding and eventually he will attack former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states that are now NATO members. Fighting Russia at that point will cost US lives in addition to more money on equipment.
We're getting a bargain by Ukraine spending the blood.
Any American should understand the fight Ukraine is fighting. We fought the same fight in 1775.
Remember also that had France decided "Yeah, we feel you but we can't afford to help", the United States wouldn't exist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@frozenglaicericet-pose6104 - in most cases, you're absolutely right.
In THIS case, it really is similar to WWII where we tried "appeasement" as Germany was "just taking this 1 territory".
If Putin was successful in taking Ukraine, he absolutely would've gone on to attack the rest of the former Warsaw Pact countries.
The reasoning would be the same. He's, delusionally, trying to rebuild the glorious Soviet Empire. Putin doesn't recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation. He's said as much about the Baltic states and Poland.
If he invaded those countries which are now NATO, the entire NATO Alliance would've been forced into responding. That's WWIII and destruction of life virtually everywhere on earth as we know it.
So, because of Putin's mental illness and narcissistic megalomania fueled delusions of re-forming the "glorious" Soviet Empire as his legacy, the West is now forced to walk a tightrope of giving enough help to Ukraine to blunt Putin's attack while not outright causing WWIII with too much response.
Just like with "gun violence" in the US, Putin's mental illness is what is really causing the situation. Unfortunately, appeasement or minding our own business, would guarantee a worse result for the entire world.
If only human beings were as advanced as dolphins, we'd not be so obsessed with developing new abs better technology and then finding ways to use that technology to destroy each other. Perhaps we'll evolve before we succeed. (last bit borrowed from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy")
2
-
2
-
8:55 We know Russia doesn't count non Russian military casualties as "casualties". I'm curious if they count all their new "other than" Russian military personnel as "recruits".
Either way, Russia had stabilized its "recruiting" at the 25k or so required to match the losses during the Avdiivka assault. However, since they didn't stop pushing and ammunition and other equipment began flowing to Ukraine again, Russia is again in a recruiting deficit by having over 30k casualties per month.
This is supported by the fact that "walking wounded" or injured soldiers who can still walk are complaining of being sent back into battle.
So, even with the 25k to 30k new soldiers Russia is able to field every month, they're still reducing their overall military size because of the massive casualty rates of more than 30k per month.
Edit, 9:22 Just because Russia can gather up 25k fighters in a month doesn't mean they can train or equip them AND ammunition (small arms, heavy weaponry, and artillery) can be produced faster.
Russia may be able to add 25k fighters to its rolls NOW, but it isn't sustainable.
The West wasn't anticipating that Putin was willing to destroy the Russian economy and society in a "sunk cost fallacy" endeavor in Ukraine.
It takes a certain number of people to keep a society running. Russia is already below that because of the drain of the Ukrainian war. In what civilized country is there not a maintenance crew available for over a week to turn off the water when a water main breaks?
Men with mechanical aptitude are going to be primary "recruiting" subjects for Russia.
Eventually the areas outside St Petersburg and Moscow will not have sufficient men to send to Ukraine and Russia will have to start "recruiting" women.
The problems with this population reduction are many. High up on the list is that Putin ALSO needs workers for the factories that produce equipment.
Inside Russia channel has said that factories are paying more to get employees because Russia has near zero unemployment. (Such low unemployment is bad because it means there aren't enough workers for available jobs). Meanwhile, the military is paying more for recruits for the same reason. The military and military industries are already competing for the same workers. As Putin continues to reduce the population, the problem grows.
The West also didn't realize Putin was willing to exacerbate the demographic crisis that Putin is well aware of (Putin had already passed laws encouraging child birth before the invasion, indeed one goal of the invasion was to "rescue" the Ukrainian people from the clutches of the evil West and add them to Russia's population figures).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
7:35 I agree with you that 9s and 10s can be a pain to date. However, your reasons are wrong.
Most guys get complacent once we get the girl. The "extra effort" involved is actually from the guy having to make sure he doesn't get complacent.
"Jumping through hoops" is only "extra effort" things that beta male providers will do because they aren't dominant in the relationship.
This 2nd point leads back into the 1st point. The extra effort is constantly evaluating her attraction level and proactively doing things to both remain the guy she initially fell for and to continue to pass any shit tests to remain the dominant partner.
That's the extra effort that will allow her to keep acting in a femine way and chasing his validation...the man has to remain a source of potential validation instead of a source of actual validation.
Because of this, the girl may well have been sad when he officially broke it off, basically saying that he wouldn't allow her to dominate him or string him along from a distance.
At that point, she realized that he was still strong enough to walk away from her which instantly made him more attractive.
It's a nuclear thing though, the relationship can't recover from that. But, the man can move on easier because realized the situation and kept his dignity and masculinity.
Well, enough relationship science. The point is dating a 9 or 10 can be more trouble than reward if the guy isn't up for constantly checking the girl and putting her in her place.
And, you'll have to be confident enough in yourself and your value to deal with her flirting with other guys. Girls require validation. If she's not getting it from you, which she shouldn't be, she has to get the free validation from other guys. Remember, the girl won't respect or have attraction to guys who give free validation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To look at how the war is going, look at things OFF the battlefield. Russia can't fix an electrical power station or water main, Ukraine can.
Things are going to get even worse for Russia as their foreign reserves run out and Russia is no longer able to prop up the value of the rubble and Russia's oil and natural gas infrastructure is destroyed.
As far as Russia trying to negotiate behind Ukraine's back with the US, if the US isn't sending equipment to Ukraine, the US has little sway over Ukraine.
Regardless, the US wouldn't give up Alaska for peace if Russia invaded there. So, combined with our own history of having to fight for our Independence and democracy, every American ought to understand that it's unreasonable to try and suggest Ukraine give up territory to Russia.
Besides, if you reward a puppy for pooping in the house, you guarantee it will poop in the house again. Rewarding Russia for its terrorism will only ensure that Russia tries again for a little more territory in a few years when it's had time to rebuild its military.
Worse, the US negotiating with a terrorist state, like Russia, shows that state that the US is weak. That would encourage Putin's Russia to try for NATO members, like the Baltics, especially as a distraction for the next campaign in Ukraine to guarantee NATO would be busy defending itself and not helpful to Ukraine.
Yes, that sounds absurd to anyone reasonable. Putin and his Russian sheep are not logical or reasonable or we wouldn't be having any of this discussion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jan_Strzelecki - besides your faulty analysis of the evidence available, you're also missing the point.
I will RE, RE-RE-iterate: the moon landings weren't faked. The photos and videos of the moon missions were.
Here's the reason: the film wasn't in good quality condition either because of radiation, errant photons pinging the film, poor lighting on picture or video subjects, poor camera aim, or all of the above.
Keep in mind that the moon missions passed through the Van Allen belts twice, once each way. That's something that Earth orbital missions didn't and don't do. What's the effect of that radiation on a relatively sensitive media like film? We know that the vehicles weren't adequately shielded for significant time in the solar wind but that exposure to somewhat more durable humans was less meaningful, likely than to film. Further, because of the lack of atmosphere and magnetosphere around the moon, it's exposed to the solar wind. Did the film even capture and maintain any images by the time it returned to earth?
Even modern satellites shut down equipment if they travel near the belts or through the gap in the magnetic field (somewhere over south America and the Atlantic iirc).
The man who designed the cameras, noted that they didn't have view finder. He stated he was amazed that so many shots from the moon actually had the subject properly centered. Before cell phones and selfie sticks, if you wanted to take a photo of yourself, you had to set a timer and try your best to get yourself in the right position.
I tried this 25 years ago with a pen pal. The results were comedic. Lots of out of focus prints or those where both of us weren't centered.
For a modern experiment, hold your cell phone at chest level, no peeking at the screen, and push the button while you think you're aimed at your photo subject. Good luck, no cheating!
How many moon mission pictures have we seen that are poorly centered on subject? I've never seen seen one. Do any exist? Were they discarded? Where are all the poorly aimed and out of focus pictures?
Again, the cameras offer another inconsistency. There were + marks ETCHED INTO THE LENS and would be visible ON TOP OF any image that was photographed. This comes directly from the camera designer. He stated that there's no way a picture could be from the moon, with a camera that was sent to the moon and not have those + marks over the image. Plenty of images exist where those marks are missing or obscured by the subject of the photo. Were the original photos edited, doctored before being released?
Then there's issues with lighting of a subject ( again, perfectly centered with no view finder) and lack of lighting on nearby objects.
Again, forest or just a lot of individual trees?
Either the moon photos were edited for a greater, more clear visual impact or the photos we've been presented were made on Earth. The reason for this would be because the moon missions weren't just for us, Americans. They were Cold War propaganda. You can't have shoddy, solor wind, Van Allen Belt compromised photos of the moon missions if we want to show our superior technology and technical capabilities to our Cold War enemies!
I'm not suggesting we didn't go to the moon. I am saying that the media we've been presented has too many inconsistencies, of which plausible explanations contradict each other, to be legitimately from the moon. I'd like to see the genuine photos, if any remain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If it's cold and rainy, I'll use a Triple Aught Design ("buy once, cry once" is as real as "confirmation bias") polyester Polar Tec fleece with a cheaper Underarmor lightweight polyester windbreaker type rain jacket.
The rain jacket isn't fancy materials, just polyester with a DWR coating. It'll soak through in about 30 minutes of light to moderate rain and maybe 10 minutes in a heavy rain. However, the fleece is my "gore tex" layer. It's hydrophobic enough and the outer jacket loose enough that the water never soaks through the fleece and has some air flow as I move around.
If it's hot, I just wear the outer later and know that I'll be drying off and changing clothes after I'm done getting rained on.
A note on the TAD products, since they are pricier than most polyester "fleece" jacket or hoodie options, they are the only brand I've found that actually use the Polar Tec fleece. This brings up TWO points that could be claimed "confirmation bias!". I'll grant that.
However, the info on the way the Polar Tec is made says it's wind resistant (or wind proof? Forget their wording). Suffice to say that it IS much more wind resistant than 2 other off brand fleece jackets I've tried (one was made out of a material that was rated as flame resistant and that was horrible for daily cool weather wear, just uncomfortable).
I noticed recently that the people making the Bear skin hoodie were using the phrase "polar fleece" in their earlier advertising and in more recent advertising switched to "bearskin fleece" or some such. I'm guessing they received a "cease and desist".
The military uses a very not wind resistant fleece layer as part of their layering system where it's designed solely for heat insulation.
I have one and that thing is very uncomfortable as a light jacket on a cool, windy day, despite being comfortable material. Wind cuts right through it.
With the Polar Tec jacket (my inner layer in cold weather or single layer in cool weather), it's noticeable how much less wind cuts through. Ironically, the place wind gets in is the arms through the stupid thumb holes if I don't roll the sleeve slightly to cover it.
If you are the type who doesn't mind paying for quality but also doesn't want to get ripped off on something like the gore tex scam, I do recommend the Polar Tec fleece jackets and hoodies from Triple Aught Design. If you want something really warm and water resistant, look for the heavier 10 or 12 oz (forget exactly) fabric versions that Polar Tec discontinued. I live in Texas and it was too warm for cool weather.
Anyway if you like the comfort of fluffy polyester fleece but want something that will stop wind, which most fleece won't, the TAD stuff works as advertised and makes a great inner layer if you prefer layering to wearing something larger and bulkier.
2
-
2
-
@WangMingGe - Hi, thanks for the reply. You're right that the Western advisors had no business trying to push Ukraine to a big offensive with Western tactics without air superiority and enough cruise missiles to knock out known air defense locations, radar, command and communications facilities, etc.
No Western general had any plans for how to clear the largest minefields on the planet without being able to knock out the artillery protecting them.
The American sports team expression is "fair weather fans". Unfortunately, the West was behaving with both an appeasement mindset of not wanting to offend Russia and also only supporting Ukraine if they could continue with big breakthroughs like Kharkiv and Kherson. The other expression is *everyone loves a winner." The two sayings are of fans that only supports the team when the team is winning but not when dealing with inevitable setbacks.
However, your message actually also highlights my point about Zaluzhny being held in very high regard, despite his strategic failures, especially as compared to Syrskyi who was held in much lower regard because he ended up having to buy time for the winter offensive.
They knew resources, men and equipment and ammo, were in too short supply (and that's before Trump's lapdog hijacked American politics and prevented a simple vote which obviously passed).If they weren't going to be able to push hard and they knew the belligerent and aggressive invaders weren't going to just go home, then a defensive line needed to be established. It's something that civilians could've done since it's away from artillery and mortar range and wouldn't have burdened the troop deployments.
That was a failure of Zaluzhny in his strategic planning. It was highlighted by the fact Suroviken was doing exactly that.
It's a necessary thing for the military to have civilian, political oversight and management in a democratic country. Otherwise, you'd have Libya, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc where the general is effectively the president.
Anyway, my point was that Zaluzhny is the hero. Your message backs that up. Meanwhile, Syrskyi was the butcher for expending unnecessary lives to hold an objective that he knew he'd have to give up. My point was that, at the timestamp in my original comment, Syrskyi's experience of having to send men to die because of bad planning and lack of foresight by his superiors will have given him more insight into the importance of saving men, if no other reason than that they are not infinity replaceable any more than Western equipment is as long as we're just trickling it in.
The reputation Syrskyi picked up for being a butcher to his own men was born from people who didn't understand the bigger strategic picture of WHY he had to hold Bakhmut (for Zaluzhny's delayed and still ill prepared offensive, largely due to the West).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thapelomzizi9469 - there have been talking heads suggesting that the United Nations ought to create a safe area around the nuclear power plant, secure that area, and prevent any incursion from either side. The original comment is just parroting that because it sounds like a good idea until you realize it's impossible.
Apparently, these talking heads don't realize several things.
First, the UN has no military. The UN is dependent on volunteers from it's member nations when military (or "security") action is required. Usually Western nations, like the US or France are at the forefront.
In order to keep NATO troops out of this power plant security force, so that NATO and Russian troops aren't risking direct contact, the UN would need to depend on its smaller, poorer, less well equipped, less well trained, less logistically capable nations to essentially create an island of security at the power plant that's surrounded by people who are fighting.
These talking heads don't mention how such an isolated security island would be supplied or what size force would (again of sub optimal quality) be required to take over the facility from Russia in the first place.
Second is the fact that Russia isn't going to just leave the power plant facility. It's ground they've seized and Russia doesn't want to give up any ground and any they do give up will require them being forced to, either by being deprived of supplies, killed, or captured.
The only reason Russia would leave the plant voluntarily is if they were going to give it the same treatment as the Nova Kakhovka dam and various other energy infrastructure in Ukraine (ie, destroy it).
Third, Russia is on the UN security council and would veto any resolution trying to create this security zone.
The UN should definitely look at removing Russia from both the security council and the UN altogether. Putin's Russia has no interest in being part of the world community and truly is a state of savages and barbarians.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
6:15 tell me you don't understand the freight market without telling me.
More weight means more wear and tear and more fuel burned to make the delivery for probably LESS money than for a lighter load.
A 15,000 lbs load is usually more profitable than a 40,000 lbs load for several reasons.
First is the wear issue. There's less component wear, especially tires but all the drive train, too. Second, I will burn significantly less fuel. And, where your naivety, ignorance, or stupidity really shows: loads don't pay BY WEIGHT.
It's been discussed raising the maximum combined gross vehicle weight rating to 90,000 lbs from the current 80,000 lbs. Virtually EVERYONE in the industry was against the proposal because it would just cost more to operate pulling a heavier load that isn't going to pay more.
As it is, customers will frequently already try to overload a trailer without paying any extra or squeeze another half pallet on if you scale out too light... With no increase in the freight rate (amount paid to the carrier for pulling the load).
Paying by weight might be the obvious but naive or ignorant argument. The heaviest loads often pay the worst because what the load is composed of or the time constraints on the load are less valuable or critical.
I have no idea how European freight is priced, but in the USA, heavier loads would ultimately just result in higher costs for consumers on store shelves as carriers would have to increase load rates across the board to make up for heavier, lower paying loads costing more to pull.
2
-
2
-
Paul, stop asking "wHeRe da Ookrane countermatak?!" It makes you look foolish.
Snipped from my reply to another comment regarding such:
Paul may be an excellent NCO and small unit leader. However, he's a goob when it comes to the bigger picture. Bakhmut wasn't ever planned as a counterattack location for Ukraine. It only became valuable when Russia decided they were cool with allowing Ukraine, from the defensive, to attrit Russian soldiers and supplies as Russia kept spamming attacks in.
When the Ukrainian offensive happens, it likely won't be near Bakhmut. Ukraine wants to attack where Russia isn't expecting it or might be expecting but doesn't have bolstered with experienced Wagner troops and Russian VDV that are in Bakhmut area.
Plus, it's mind boggling that Paul keeps asking "wHeRe da countermatak?!" when it's mud season. Perun Channel humorously quipped in a recent vid, "insert required 'mud season in Ukraine vid clip'".
If Ukraine goes on the offensive when fields and unpaved roads are mud, Ukraine would be making the exact same mistake Russia did last year. Russia expected Ukraine to surrender and invaded during mud season so that they would only have to secure the roads and not worry about Ukrainian mechanized attack from multiple off road vectors.
If Ukraine attacks before they can maneuver off road, they are stuck to roads which are predictable and easy to mine or ambush (as Russia learned when it couldn't maintain supply lines on roads that Ukraine could ambush).
THEN, after all that, Ukraine isn't the US military. In Paul's experience, his military had all its pieces available at the start of the game, as an analogy. Ukraine did not start with all its pieces on the board and is currently awaiting some games changing hardware, particularly the IFV (infantry fighting vehicles) Bradley and Warrior.
Besides waiting for them to arrive with trained troops and be formed into units, what good would it do Ukraine to make the first mission of a Bradley, Challenger, or Leopard be: get stuck in the mud and practice retrieval ops.
IDK. Maybe Paul could Google "Ukraine mud" and figure out why Ukraine hasn't gone on offense yet or understand that Ukraine probably won't be doing so in Bakhmut. It's folly to let your enemy decide where to fight. That's another mistake Russia keeps failing to learn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Orcs, barbarians, zombies aren't simply wartime slurs to de-humanize the enemy, in the case of Russians, they're apt descriptions.
Orcs and barbarians are brutal, unthinking, and leave a wake of chaos behind them. While they can be strong in battle, they rely heavily on numbers to create fear and reduce morale of their enemies. Barbarians also rely on speed and continuous movement and suffer rapid atrophy if sitting still in a trench too long.
While potentially being strong in battle, they're not necessarily capable of organizing themselves into an effective group to accomplish specific objectives that require more than brute force. Both orcs and barbarians are also weak to sorcery and magic from the school of HIMARS.
Zombies are the unthinking, unfeeling remains of something that was once human (or in this case, something that was once orc or barbarian). They may be able to endure pain and harsh conditions but without any thing more than a primal drive to survive (and steal washing machines), they are a very disorganized and ineffective enemy when they don't have a large advantage of sheer numbers of bodies.
Zombies have, in smaller groups, have also been found to be almost tameable if offered sustenance (and /or cash payment). Ongoing experiments have yet to determine if the blind, unthinking zombie state can be reversed and the subject returned to humanity.
So, yeah. It's terrible that the Ukrainians' borders have been overrun by these orcs, barbarians, and zombies but the brave, resilient, and flexible Ukrainians are doing an excellent job of pushing the vile hordes back.
2
-
2
-
You have to understand that air power isn't going to be much use to Ukraine unless 2 things happen.
Ukraine needs a platform to launch the Meteor long range air to air missile at the Russian Su 34 and mig 29 that are lobbing R37 missiles at Ukrainian jets from 150 km away, safely over Russian ground based air defenses (gbad). F-16's aim 120 amraam is too short range to counter this and the F-16 can't fly closer to the Russians to get in range because of the gbad coverage.
The F-16 will primarily be a ground attack platform in Ukraine, ironically as it's the quintessential dog fighter. Ukraine will need Gripen, Typhoon, or Rafale in order to make it risky for Russia keep lobbing R37 missiles at any Ukrainian jets that are detected.
Both F-16 and whatever Ukraine gets to carry Meteor will still be dealing with S300 and S400 ground based missiles that have a longer range than HARM anti radar missile or the Pantsir system which can have several launch vehicles tied into each other and can launch without having active radar, albeit from much shorter range than S300, S400.
Basically, getting F-16 isn't going to put jets in the air helping Ukrainian ground forces.
F-16 needs Gripen or Typhoon to protect it from R37 AA missile lobbing Russian jets.
Gripen/Typhoon needs a bunch of cruise missiles (Storm Shadow, ATACMS, GLSDB, etc) to overwhelm Russian radar to provide protection from gbad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnSmith-mo4yh - Re, Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine was, unfortunately, excluded from NATO membership discussion as was Georgia in an effort to appease Russia.
However, let's clear something up. NATO doesn't "absorb" its member states the way Russia absorbed its neighbors to form the first and second Russian Empire (Soviet Union).
NATO members voluntarily join and aren't forced to remain in the alliance via military intervention, as the Soviet Union has to intervene militarily to prevent Hungary and Czechoslovakia from leaving prior to the collapse (and had planned to send tanks to Poland to quell their desire to leave).
NATO didn't expand east. Former Soviet states fled west seeking protection from an aggressive Russia which they knew would be back.
When you look at Georgia and Ukraine, you can see why countries that would prefer to remain independent from Russia would seek a defensive alliance to prevent Russia trying to invade and subjugate them.
Ukraine (and Georgia) were never Russian, not in language, culture, or origin. Yet, Putin feels its his Right to subjugate his independent neighbors and forcibly absorb them into a Russian Empire.
Which NATO member states were forced to join by military invasion? Which EU members were forced to join by military invasion?
Russians are so unfamiliar with the idea that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar that it is inconceivable to Russians that any country would join NATO without being forced to.
However, just as it's true that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, it's true that NATO didn't force anyone to join.
On the contrary, NATO members actually fight, politically, to prevent new members from joining. Basically, NATO is the dance club with a waiting line and Russia is the old bar around the corner with warm beer, no music system or dance for, and no line of people waiting to get in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Conserpov - sigh. Russia is bringing in money from oil sales. However, they are bringing in 30% less oil revenue than at the start of the war.
That revenue was also about 30% of Russia's government budget. So, while Russia may be bringing in money (and at a scale that seems like "raking it in"), it's bringing in SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than when the war started. It's estimated that if Russia continues the war throughout 2023, they will spend over 30% of the government budget on the war.
So, still leaves 70% available, right? Well, that's a full 30% that wasn't budgeted for, at all, for 2022 or 2023 considering this was a "3 day war".
The bottom line is that Russia is financially hurting due to sanctions, reduced demand for oil and gas from Europe, and also from the mobilization and brain drain (people wealthy enough and smart enough to leave Russia doing just that, plus the wise draft dodgers).
However much Russia is "raking in" isn't enough to sustain the war in Ukraine and manage normal pre-war government expenditures.
Regarding western shipping, Russia moved comparatively small amounts of oil or LNG via the seas. So, those shipping and insurance companies aren't missing much business from Russia and will make it up from increaed exports from the US, which is the world's largest LNG producer and one of the largest oil producers.
I do thank you for your effort at propaganda, as it gives me reason to explain more in depth. However, your effort at insulting me was weak and needless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tldr, hot is nothing new with performance laptops.
As a performance laptop user for the past 11 years, I never understood why desktop guys were so freaked out by temps in the 80s (or even 70s!).
The best cooling solutions I've had were in Asus laptops G73 (2009,Radeon HD 5870m) and G751 (2015ish?, gtx 980m).They both got hot, 92+ kinda hot on the cpu. The G73 still works. The G751 seem to have overheated the solder securing the power port to the mobo which, combined with a bad port and plug design, resulted in a bsod due to lack of juice (and a battery that was good for about 30 seconds under load, at the time of death). It's still sitting there waiting for me to take it apart and see if the cpu or mobo was damaged or if it just needs the port replaced and resecured.
My current Power Spec 2019, rtx 2070 (Micro Center branded Sager chassis) has been pretty abysmal. The cpu was up to 96 to 98 under light load. After discovering undervolting with Intel xtu and detuning the boost clock from 3.8 to 3.5 GHz, it will maintain pleasantly cool temps under load...about 94c.
I say "pleasantly cool" here because it keeps it from thermal throttling (occurs at 96c) or thermal shutdown (at 98 or 99 c).
But, it hasn't melted anything loose yet with daily use and was the best value when I needed something off the shelf to immediately replace the bsod Asus G751.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Putin is trying to micromanage everything. He's also trying to do so with bad information. Trying to run the world's largest country, a war with a 1,000km front line, and now this Ukrainian SMO, one man, especially an older gent, is going to be overwhelmed.
Plus, Putin isn't a military man. He has no formal training in military strategy or tactics. So, overwhelmed, bad intelligence, and no military strategy schooling or experience.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FerventlyUnderstanding - as men's age increases, our confidence and arning ability also increases. As men age, they bring more to the table.
As women age, they bring less to the table. They're more likely to be interested in their career instead of in taking care of their man. A woman's career accomplishments or earning power don't make her more attractive (women don't share their wealth with their male partner the way a man shares with his female partner).
Further, what women do bring to the table as they age is baggage.
Why would a man want to an older woman who is less physically attractive, more interested in her career, and that has more baggage when he could have a younger woman that's more physically attractive, less focused on her career, and has less baggage?
What's the upside for a man, regardless of age, choosing to be with an older woman instead of a younger one?
Ladies, the things that increase your self worth don't increase your attractiveness.
You've got a masters and a high paying job? Great, can you make me a good sandwich and fetch a cold beer? Thanks.
The other thing women don't realize is that men are catching on to their hypergamous nature.
There's two parts to this. First, it's much more sensible to have a fun, light relationship with a more attractive, less financially intensive younger woman than have a serious, more emotionally and financially intensive relationship with an older woman.
If the younger gal is one of the very rare few who can suppress their "just want to be young and have fun and stuff" urges to actually be a good long term partner, even better.
Second, men have memories. If you would've turned a guy down when you were both 20 or 25 because you felt you had better options, why is it unexpected that he'd turn YOU down when you're 35 or 45 when HE has better options?
This is what it means when we say women have their value front loaded, without doing anything, and it decreases as she ages while men have to earn their value and it increases as they age.
"It's not fair." You're absolutely correct. Many 20 year old guys will agree with 40 year old women on that statement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@captiancholera8459 - Putin chose to invade when his armor would be road locked because it means Ukraine also can't go off road to attack from any angle. Plus, the Russian supply trucks would be on the roads any way.
Further, Russia doesn't, for the most part, control territory in Ukraine (except NW of Kyiv). Russia controls roads, and even then, not entirely along their required supply routes.
If the ground was dry enough, solid enough for armor to move off-road, Russia would have to use many more troops to secure the regions in which they are now only trying to control roads in. Russia doesn't have the manpower and it would've slowed their planned rapid advance.
Again, moving armor off-road isn't practical if it leaves the supply trucks unprotected on the roads.
Once the ground dries, the Russian invasion stops completely as Russia will have to dig in and prepare for Ukraine to attack Russian positions from any direction. This is compounded by the fact that Russian units are losing combat efficiency due to losses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First, generally, hitting the deer is the best option.
If you brake, you have to have been paying attention to if someone was behind you, if the road was wet or gravelly (fresh pavement), etc because hard braking can lead to loss of control even with ABS, which can also fail.
If you swerve, as Louis points out, deer are suicidal and it may still get in front of you or another deer may if multiple were present. Worse is that an instinctive swerve may not account for anything on the shoulder (another deer, trees, soft or wet shoulder) which could cause loss of control or a more severe impact than just hitting the deer in the road.
If a person swerves into the oncoming lane because the deer walked in from the right, that risks a possible head on collision with another vehicle or loss of control (spin) and then being hit by an oncoming car as the driver catches their bearing.
Breaking and swerving is the worst option as even ABS or stability controlled cars can spin or flip (seriously) due to the abrupt control input.
It's scary as hell to think that if that was a child, auto pilot happily would have hit them. It's that type of situation where a human may decide to smack a tree, risking their own life but avoiding the pedestrian.
I'd be interested to know if auto pilot is trying to mimic the initial advice of "just hit the deer, leave hindsight for later." Can it differentiate between the profile of a deer and pedestrian?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
12:54 Evidence suggests that part of the reason the Russian public is still in support of the war or its supposed objectives is because, despite high casualties, the public, especially in Moscow and Leningrad, aren't feeling any cost of the war.
This leads to the fact that if American military aid isn't renewed, Ukraine will likely begin attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure such as heat and electricity as Russia has done and is attempting to do in Ukraine.
Placing an actual, personal cost for Putin's War on the average Russian in Moscow and Leningrad will cause Putin problems more than it will reinforce Russians belief in the war. Russians have been trained by 2 decades of Putin rule to be a-political. It's OK for Putin to do whatever as long as it doesn't affect them.
Ukraine's recent railway attacks and previous drone attacks within Russia were both demonstration and training for such operations inside Russia be it by Ukrainian operatives or partisans.
Ukraine has specifically not done such infrastructure attacks so as to maintain the high moral ground in order to maintain Western support. However, despite European countries being next in line for invasion, it's unlikely that Europe will be able to replace the volume American military aid. That puts Ukraine's back against the wall and pulls the stops.
Ironically, because Putin and Russian leadership already believe Russia is fighting the US or NATO, such attacks inside Russia will be deemed as coming from the US even though such attacks would be because of reduced US aid.
Russia interpreting such attacks as being from or at the direction of the US could cause escalation even if indirectly as Russia could encourage its allies, like Iran, to attack US assets overseas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@crogeny - Speaking of timetables, in 2008, Dubya was still sparring with Putin over who was actually head of a world power. Putin warned, told, Dubya not to invade Iraq for Iraq 2. Putin never got over the fact that the American cowboy considered Russia so toothless that America wouldn't heed Putin's warning.
So, of course Dubya would urge NATO to do things, like talk up admitting Ukraine, that would follow the same grain of sidelining Putin's Russia.
In 2009 Obama came to the White House and began the "Russian Reset". At that point, anything offensive to Russia ceased, including the US honoring its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
So, again, you would be correct to argue that since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine WAS being considered for NATO membership, "someday"....someday.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Prof, you glossed over the violation of the US Constitution by Trump.
By stopping aid that Congress authorized, Trump is playing king. The Separation of Powers laid out in the Constitution has Congress controlling what money is spent on. Those spending bills are LAWS enacted by the Congressional branch.
The Executive branch cannot disregard those laws, except by a presidential veto of the legislation BEFORE its signed into law. Since the president, Biden, already signed the legislation into law, Trump cannot legally amend, stop, discontinue, etc the aid laid out in that LAW.
We are having a Constitutional crisis in the United States. Trump, the Executive branch, has disregarded legislation passed by the Congressional branch of our government.
A further complication is that Trump has also seated a majority of the Supreme Court, the Judicial branch of government (through a failure of both the Congressional branch in approving the candidates and prior justices holding on to their seat until Death's icy grip pulled them from this existence instead of abdicating their seat to allow a reasonable balance to the Judicial branch's Supreme Court.
2
-
1:45 You are 100% incorrect.
On the contrary, seizing Russian funds will make western banks MORE attractive to legitimate depositors because it sends the message that if you're a bad actor, you can't hide from justice in Western banks. You can't violate international law, create a chaos that affects the world, and then expect legal protection from the civilized world.
If anything, that reinforces rule of law and provides legitimate investors with the peace of mind that the entire financial institution won't be persecuted in the event that a bad actor tries to stash money in the same bank as the legitimate depositor.
As others have stated, most people who deposit money into western banks aren't lunatic megalomaniac dictators invading countries who posed no threat simply because they're in the mood to kidnap some children, commit some war rape, attempt a genocide, and generally destroy that country.
Your stance on this seems to be a misguided effort of being neutral or unbiased. You recently did a diatribe against the statement by some bots or ignorant anti-democracy Westerners that you "don't give bad news". In that video you proceeded to try REALLY hard to come up with something "bad news" to the point that you swerved away from facts and veered off into speculative stories.
That was odd considering you had just put out the "I was wrong" vid about how you (correctly) handled the breaking Gerasimov story.
Now, you're talking gibberish to appease Russian bots and anti-democracy Westerners (pro-russian IS anti-democracy, keep in mind).
Instead of trying to appease Russian bots with strained and struggling "unbiased" vids that only hurt your credibility, just report the facts.
That's the best way to be unbiased. Once you start inserting incorrect opinions (a la "investors will run from Western banks!"), you're now proselytizing instead of reporting and educating.
You lose credibility for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
5:40 re, NATO exercise in Finland...
You're wrong about the effect this will have on Putin.
Sadly, the NATO exercise will actually have the OPPOSITE effect of what's intended. It was Western dismissal of Russia as a super power (or, rather Russia being a NON super power) that set Putin on his path of wanting to recreate the "glorious" Soviet Union or (what the "Soviet Union" really was, the 2nd Russian Empire).
Putin told Dubya (US president George Bush junior) not to invade Iraq after 9/11 in our witch hunt for WMD. Dubya listened politely and then completely ignored Putin. Indeed, at the time, 2003, Russia wasn't a world wide super power. They were still coming to terms with what being "just Russia" meant. Putin was only in office for 4 years and basically a nobody in the minds of Dubya and his handlers (Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, although Dubya famously stated he was, in fact "the decider").
So, NATO showing "strength" by showing how marginal Russia is compared to the strength of NATO right along the Russian border in a new NATO member that Putin perceives as being in the Russian sphere of influence will actually only embolden Putin and cause him to triple down in Ukraine, Transnistria and possibly the Baltics to actually test NATO and show NATO that Russia IS a force to be reckoned with.
Remember, as Julia ioffe has said, think of the Russians as being purple and from outer space. Just because they look like Europeans, they think nothing like Europeans (or people of European descent, Westerners).
While it's true that Putin only understands strength, this is the WRONG type of strength. This is 100% bluster and Putin sees it as such, totally inconsequential. Putin KNOWS that NATO isn't going to attack Russia just as he knows Ukraine wasn't and isn't going to attack Russia. That's why the borders around Russia, except for the area from the Kharkiv to Donbas front are almost completely bereft of Russian forces and only border guard, not regular military units are present outside the main front area.
This NATO exercise is like if Western countries sent Ukraine a lot of C-5 Galaxy military cargo planes. They could say, "We sent Ukraine a lot of military aid!"
That would be true in a monetary sense but absolutely false in a what's USEFUL or NEEDED sense.
The type of strength that will give Putin pause is military equipment going to Ukraine and a more unified NATO instead of the dithering and hemming and hawing about sending aid at all or if this or that weapon system ought to go. Send Ukraine everything they need to defeat Russia, including long range fires to destroy supply depots, radar, command and communications facilities , known surface to air batteries that are all behind the front line but feeding Russian ability to keep the zombie waves rolling forward over their dead comrades.
The NATO exercise is stupid bluster. Real, actual strength is sending equipment to Ukraine. THAT is something Russia and Putin will feel and recognize as "strength".
6:45 This statement by the Russian spokeswoman confirms what I explained. Yes, it sounds ridiculous to us that Russia could retaliate in any meaningful way.
Remember, think of Russians as being purple. The Russian response to the NATO show of force will be exactly what you said, more attacks on Ukrainian civilians and a renewed "reason" why Russia must "make Russia great again" by beating its neighbors into submission and eventually testing NATO in the Baltics or Poland if Russia isn't resoundingly defeated and evicted from all parts of Ukraine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
0:55 re, "Russia has a military advantage"
This is the same Soviet fallacy. Even though much of the equipment is the same, the Ukrainians training, experience, and motivation FAR outweigh that of Russia.
The problems of experience and training keep growing exponentially as Russia continues sacrificing personnel while Ukraine tries to minimize troop losses.
This is the same thing that happened in WWII to the German Luftwaffe. Germany began with well trained pilots that had experience. They sacrificed these pilots against the allied bombing raids. Germany ended up with a few aces with very high tallies (not all survived the war) and mostly inexperienced pilots that were liable to crash on takeoff or landing, let alone not be effective against allied escort pilots.
The allies had fewer aces with far lower tallies. These experienced pilots were rotated out of theater to become instructors or promoted to unit commanders.
Russia is suffering the same experience drain in all aspects of their military. Every soldier, pilot, or tanker captured or eliminated is experience and training that is completely lost and unable to be passed on to the next cadre of personnel.
Before doing the general mobilization, Russia gutted its training corps to fill out units, trying to avoid a mobilization. Most Russian peacetime training was done after individuals arrived at their unit. With a gutted training infrastructure and units engaged in actual combat unable to do training out of combat, Russian training has been fairly non existent since the first year of the war.
That's sort of OK for them because their recruitment rate barely matched their burn rate, so the individuals just needed to be warm bodies on the front to prevent Ukraine from going the on offensive.
The training and experience divide is like the American wealth gap. People with money have a much easier time turning that into more money.
Ukrainians are having better trained troops that are trained by more experienced troops with practical battlefield knowledge and Ukraine is fielding more experienced troops in battle. This gap is growing every day.
The Soviet Union's "advantage" was quantity. Putin is using more quantitiy than he can afford to or replace and he's losing it to Western supplied Ukraine who's making masterful use of the hand me downs and surplus that was designed specifically to counter Soviet quantity with quality. This is particularly evident in the longer range, more accurate artillery as well as ground based air defenses and the excellent Bradley IFV.
Russia doesn't have a military advantage. They did at the start of the war, but even Prigozhin in his truth propaganda decried Putin for making Ukraine much more militarized than before the invasion.
Currently, for an OFFENSIVE war, Russia doesn't have an advantage over Ukraine. As you pointed out their "Ace in the hole" of nuclear weapons don't count in a belligerent war they started. Ironically, Russia had an army that was geared towards defense. It's the Russian genetic fear of being invaded. Russians are very cynical compared to most Westerners and, yes, Russia did think NATO was plotting and planning to invade one day.
Now, Russia has depleted its military with its no strategy meat grinder offense and is unable to even function as the defense force it was designed as.
If Russia had a military advantage, Ukraine wouldn't be liberating more Russian territory in a week than Russian captured in 8 months. You can't reasonably argue that.
Again, a big part of this non-advantage of Russia comes down to the widening training and experience gap and Ukraine being motivated by defending their home freedom from Russia oppression.
Russian military motivation comes from money and rear echelon troops pointing guns at the backs of more forward troops. That's a SIGNIFICANT difference.
Thinking Russia has an advantage militarily is the same type of thinking you chastise Western leaders for with their self deterrence and appeasement talk.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:32 re, Ukraine and Russia size vs endurance
Perun channel has debunked the idea that Ukraine can't outlast Russia because Russia is larger and has a larger population.
Russia is actually just a very large small country. Most of it is undeveloped. Russia can't maintain their basic infrastructure let alone more advanced petroleum infrastructure, that their economy is based on, without Western knowledge and components.
Further, despite having a larger population, Russian unemployment is already critically LOW because of people fleeing the country, being drawn into the military, or dying.
This has a negative effect on Russian ability to maintain their economy and on their ability to maintain the military size. Basically, despite having more people than Ukraine, there still aren't enough people to make all the wheels go 'round in both the civil and military sectors at the same time.
Ukraine is a wild animal backed into a corner. It will continue to recruit and train troops and to fight because Ukraine doesn't have a choice.
Because of the loss ratio of somewhere between 3:1 and 10:1, Ukraine doesn't require as many troops to fight on its own territory as Russia needs to fight in foreign territory,
If Ukraine's friends continue to support them with military aid, Ukraine doesn't have to force the civilian population into factories to produce equipment. This leaves a higher percentage of people available for both military service and maintaining the civil infrastructure.
Being bigger truly is a double edged sword for Russia because the country is so vast and so underdeveloped.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As the vid points out in the title, it's impossible for a 20 year dictator to get accurate, good advice. He's going to be surrounded by sycophants and yes-men.
Putin grossly underestimated the Ukraine will to fight and actual capabilities.
The Russian military is like the German Luftwaffe of WWII towards the latter part of the war. They had a few very good, well trained pilots and many virtually untrained pilots.
The former is akin to the Russian special forces, advance elements, and recon/saboteurs who were air dropped in or rapidly advanced. The latter is akin to the regular Russian conscripted army.
The initial invasion was supposed to have the sir dropped elements occupy key areas (like the military airfield near Kiev) and rapidly secure forward positions while the advance mechanized elements secured the supply line routes meeting up with the forward units to allow the fuel, ammo, and reinforcements to drive up and bolster the initial invasion forces.
Needless to say, that didn't happen. The initial special forces troops were unable to hold their objectives without the mechanized troops arriving to support and all that soft equipment on the road was unable to move forward with the first elements bogged down fighting the Ukrainian defenders or outright out of fuel.
Putin was picturing Iraq 1 and had found himself with an Afghanistan, where missiles are knocking out his resupply and attack aircraft behind the front line and his armor and mechanized units on the front line and even women and children are making molotovs like it was a craft fair and civilians taking up arms to defend themselves in addition to the active military and actual reservists with some training stalling his confused, poorly trained, tired, hungry, thirsty conscripts.
Putin, has driven himself into a coffin.
Perhaps he is suffering from mental illness and not just his normal narcissistic, egotistical hubris. Hopefully one of his advisors will recognize this, that he's in the wrong and Putin had Hobe mad, and push Putin down the stairs before Putin continues his path of escalation towards nukes.
Putin painted himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He had to invade Ukraine, again (2014 was also an invasion), because he left no way to de-escalate without losing face.
Now that he's turning his rhetoric towards nuclear weapons, it's very serious because he could again paint himself in a corner where the only action he perceives as viable, to not lose face, is to attack.
The Russian people, and the world, should be very concerned about this unstable megalomaniac. Obviously, if Putin uses nukes, the Russian people will get real crispy, real fast too. Russians need to silence and remove Putin before his rhetoric actually comes true as a "self filling prophecy" and he does elicit a war with the West.
War with Russia is not something anyone in the west wants. Most people either don't think about Russia at all or simply wish Russia had a reasonable leadership so that we could trade with them and exchange culturally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:12 re, size fallacy. I'm not sure if you're talking size as in territory or population. Russia does have a 3 to 1 advantage over Ukraine in the number of fighting age men.
HOWEVER, because Russia is so large and has a larger population, it requires more men to simply keep the social, military, and economic infrastructure maintained.
If you notice the issues Russia has had recently with things falling apart, dams collapsing, or bust water mains not being repaired quickly, you'll realize Russia may have more men but not ENOUGH men.
So, subtract out some men for bare bones maintenance of the country. Then look at the the at least 3 to 1 advantage Ukraine has in its casualty rate because of Russia's insistence on "meters at any cost", no strategy, zombie meat wave attacks.
Now, you'll see that Russia has a RAW population advantage but it doesn't have a PRACTICAL population advantage because they don't have more men than the Ukrainian casualty ratio is inflicting.
Russia is a very large, very small country.
Most of the land is totally undeveloped and most of the people are poor.
Saying Russia has a size advantage over Ukraine is the same sort of thought process as Western governments use to self deterr.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:09 Jake, make no mistake, mass indiscriminate killing of civilians is also Israel's policy towards Palestinians.
Except, Isreal has tanks, jets, and helicopter gunships. So, Israel is much better at it than HAMAS. The Israeli policy is to eliminate women before 30 can have more children and eliminate the children before they can grow up to be HAMAS.
Israel is the Russia of the Middle East.
Israel bombs the only authorized exit from Gaza and THEN advises Palestinian civilians to exit Gaza due to imminent Israeli attack.
This is EXACTLY the same as Russia bombarding humanitarian civilian evacuation corridors with artillery, thereby preventing civilians from fleeing areas that were facing attack.
Israeli regional policy and leadership behavior mimic that of Russia: bullying neighbors with the SAME excuse Putin uses (we've been invaded in the past), occupying territory illegally, desiring genocide against people who live in territory that Israel desires.
It's sadly ironic that Netanyahu, and many Israelis would eliminate the Palestinians altogether with a snap of their fingers if it was possible.
Take care that when hunting monsters, you yourself don't become a monster.
Again, It's similar to Putin and his Nazis. The only reason Israel doesn't outright obliterate the Palestinians is that if they did what they desire, they'd lose the moral high ground and possibly Western support. Although, America so enjoys slobbering and choking on Israeli peen that it might be too far down our throats to remove.
As with Putin, Israeli leadership enjoys having the Palestinians and HAMAS as an "existential threat to security". That one of Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine. HAMAS is a creation of bad Israeli regional policies. Israeli leadership benefits more from HAMAS than the Palestinians do because having that threat allows Israeli politicians to be the strongman and continue the cycle. That's a cycle which keeps them in power.
Israel doesn't want peace with the Palestinians. Israeli politicians are perfectly OK with Israeli civilians being killed or wounded in terrorist attacks every so often as long as this maintains status quo and enables the Israeli politicians to stay in power and propagate cycle.
There won't be peace in that region until Israel eliminates all Palestinians or the civilized world starts treating Israel like the barbaric state sponsor of terrorism that it is. Israel is both directly responsible for the killing of Palestinian women and children as well as the Israeli governments de facto support for HAMAS as described above.
As an American, it sickens me that so many people go full on Russian Sheep mode and refuse to think critically and look at the causality of the current situation and how Israeli policy is the catalyst.
Edit, more similarity with Russia
1:24 Pictures and videos online show Israel pretending they're Russia and that Gaza is Mariupol.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@federalfreemoneylackofrese9937 - 85,000 cases, 2800 deaths. Mortality rate of 0.33% compared to flu mortality rate of 0.05% to 0.1%.
Technically, Coronavirus is LESS fatal than the standard, kills thousands every year flu.
Also, keep in mind that many deaths from Coronavirus are from people not taking proper steps initially to recover: hydrate, rest, manage fever.
The issue is that Coronavirus appears to spread faster than standard flu, or at least be more likely to actually cause symptoms in people.
Often, we are exposed to and, therefore infected with, illnesses but don't notice because our body fights it off and we barely notice.
As many as 20% of the US population gets the flu every year. As few as 3% develop symptoms (become "sick").
Don't touch your mouth, nose, or eyes. Use hand sanitizer after interacting with people or public objects. Wash your hands before you eat..
If you get sick, stay home, rest, drink fluids do your body can do its healing.
I can't stand our obsession with having sick people show up for work.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I said it before, but Kherson wasn't a misinformation campaign or feint. The technical term for the Kherson operations is "dilemma".
Basically, the Kherson operation would leave Russia with 2 bad choices. 1st, Russia could divert troops to Kherson region and leave the east and northeast weaker. Or, Russia could not divert troops to Kherson, continuing its eastern attacks and northeast probing attacks, but leaving Kherson weaker.
Due to the lack of logistics due to the HIMARS removing Russian supply depots, Russia was no longer able to maintain its troops and hold on both south and east regions.
If Russia hadn't reinforced Kherson area, Ukraine simply would have pushed the Russians back to the Dnipr River and re-taken Kherson.
So, it wasn't a successful misinformation campaign, it was a successful dilemma that was going to result a huge map change either in the east, northeast, or south
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I subscribed when you stopped begging for subscription and giving a speil about how youtube hides you.
I'm subscribed, but I have manually turned notifications off for EVERY channel, except one that I left active that rarely uploads.
So, I never get notifications for you, because I turned them off. However, what I DO GET is most of your vids listed in my recommendations every day, on the day you post it.
What I have seen youtube doing is occasionally sending me notifications. Keep in mind, I've turned them all off.
The notification link says something like "want to continue receiving notifications?"
So, I have to click on the notification link and turn notifications for that channel off, again.
The other thing I've started seeing is "rate this notification" or "rate this suggestion".
So, youtube is doing something with recommendations.
The rule is to never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ineptitude.
My guess would be that part of your problem is that your viewers aren't clicking you if in their suggestions.
I think your vid count could hurt your clicks because it's spammy. I see your vids in my suggestions, but only watch 1 or 2, if the subject is interesting.
If the subject isn't interesting, I don't click. I'm no youtube or communications professional. That said, I understand that many people these days are infected with Twitter Think. If it's not super concise their imaginary ADD kicks in.
My comments are too long for this format. My posts on forums are too long for that format. People don't value in depth, precise communication.
They value the concise. I know you do a free forn radio show style presentation.
As an expiriment, I would try two things, at first separate and then both at the same time.
First, go to one video per day. It makes you less spammy and increases the value of each vid. It's a sales and perceived value thing.
I've seen very attractive cam girls with low rates do poorly compared to less attractive and mean girls with a higher rate.
It's a value perception. If the ugly mean girl is changing more, she must be worth more. It's how our caveman brain, subconscious, sees things.
Less vids equals more value, more significance, per vid.
Second, try getting your thoughts together and writing out a script. Then hit that script with something like Grammarly to really distill it down to the basic core of what you want to convey. Short, sweet.
Third, after you asses views of each method, combine them and asses clicks and view times
As a bonus, you can try the interview presentation some channels, like VinWiki use. Don't talk to camera. Set up the cam so it looks like you are talking to some interviewing you. Edit a cut between "questions", where we're just hearing your answer, possibly with the question or topic visible in tab at bottom of the screen so viewers know what you're speaking about.
You can look up VinWiki channel to see the style.
An example could be "the OK boomer girl" in a tag at the bottom of the screen. You are seated askance to the camera, talking to the "interviewer" and and answering the question of "what's the deal with the OK boomer girl".
I will say your vids wander a lot with your from the cuff style. It doesn't bother me because I do most of my "watching" with vids playing in the background while I do something else. When a subject interests me and I actually DO watch, your meandering style is a bit annoying.
Also, you should pick up a sponsorship or marketing partnership with Live Bearded. They offer good quality, made in the USA beard oils, washes and balms that are high quality and smell great (and manly). Help neckbeards in your audience get their manes under control! I've used their stuff for over a year and found out about them on another YouTube channel.
Best of luck!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can't have air power with the volume of ground based air defenses (gbad). If either side puts something up, it's playing a game of Frogger with missiles.
What COULD help is Ukraine getting Gripen, Typhoon, or Rafale. Those are capable of using the Meteor air to air missile, which has a long enough range to increase the risk of Russian Su 34 and Mig 31 that lob R37 missiles at any Ukrainian aircraft that are detected from over 100km away, while staying over their own gbad.
Ukraine will eventually need one of those platforms anyway because F-16 can't carry the Storm Shadow, either...Unless Ukraine can modify it to use Meteor and Storm Shadow. Either way, to be able to use aircraft, Ukraine would need sufficient numbers of aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, and decoys to both overwhelm Russian air defense radar operators and target known S300 and S400 SAM systems (which have over 200km range) with cruise missiles and drones while HARM is used to take out Pantsir SAM systems (which have around 30km range).
So, even with everything they'd need, it would still require a large coordinated attack just against gbad which would be dangerous in itself and result in losses.
This is a situation the US hasn't had to deal with, even Saddam's gbad, Iraq 1, was a drop in the bucket compared to the number of systems and stockpile of missiles Russia had available at the start of the war. Fortunately, Ukraine also had many and those have been further augmented by Western systems as Ukraine's Soviet era missile ammunition runs out.
1
-
1
-
@brianhenson6141 - You bring up a controversial point. The thing about ATACMS (or Storm Shadow or GLSDB, that are in or slated for shipment to Ukraine) is that the West is basically saying, "here ya go, but don't use it on targets inside Russia.
So, even if Ukraine got ATACMS which carry a much smaller warhead than Storm Shadow, they'd be limited to use on Russian targets in occupied areas of Ukraine...if Ukraine wanted to maintain the Western equipment pipeline, which they must.
This is the problem of a nuclear power acting in offense. Right now, Russia knows full well that the only things they have to fear attacking Russia are Wagner and the various Russian freedom fighter groups.
At the outset of this war, one reason given was to pre-empt the imminent Nazi Ukrainian attack on Mother Russia. Everyone in the Russian government knew that neither Ukraine nor anyone else was going to invade Russia. Russia's wide open northern border with Ukraine is perfect evidence that Russia knows they are not under any external existential threat.
So, as long as nobody actually goes and attacks Russia, there's little likelihood that Russia will actually escalate to a nuclear deterrent level because even China and India would turn their backs on Russia. The whole world knows Russia picked a fight, is losing, and being very sore about it.
However, if Western weapons, cruise missiles started flying into Russia, a nuclear demonstration in the north Atlantic wouldn't be out of the question. Right now, Russia has nothing to deter. Nobody is attacking Russia in Russia...except various Russians in the kindling of a civil war.
So, yes. It would be good to destroy Russian aircraft, ground based air defenses, supply depots, and command infrastructure in Russia, but it's not feasible to to it with Western weapons.
Interestingly, all those targets have been hit, inside Russia, to some degree by either Ukraine (with its own weapons) or partisan groups that are either against Putin or against the war with Ukraine (or both). Well, that or lots of smoking accidents inside Russia.
The trick is driving Russia out of Ukraine without Putin and just generals going completely mad and going nuclear just because they can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bakhmut isn't strategically important. That's just a fact. What makes Bakhmut important is that Russia has been willing to keep expending bodies and resources trying to take it.
Ukraine wants Russian troops out of Ukraine. THAT is the goal. Ukrainians are going to die. It's a war. The goal is to minimize Ukrainian casualties while maximizing Russian casualties.
So, two things. First, If Ukraine doesn't fight, they don't lose troops. However, they lose their country and many would end up dead, executed as Russians took over, or raped and then executed (evidence of this in other areas Russia had occupied). Ukraine is going to fight, so they will lose people. That's unavoidable.
The second thing is that there's two ways Ukraine can fight the occupying Russians. They could strike out and attack the Russian defensive positions or Ukrainians can stay in their defensive positions and fight the Russians as they move in the open, outside of any built up defenses.
The first way would result in many, many more Ukrainian casualties.
You may ask why Ukraine is retreating if they are fighting from defenses? That's because they are outnumbered in the area. Ukraine doesn't intent to hold Bakhmut from the Russian onslaught. They have enough troops there to inflict heavier casualties on the Russians than Ukraine is taking.
Well, why doesn't Ukraine send more troops?! Because, wait for it.... Bakhmut isn't important, not strategically. Ukraine has troops in training and deployed more heavily in an area that is strategically important, likely near Zaporizhia. It will be interesting to see if Russia reinforces that area with Ukraine announcing its intentions there. Which might lead to Ukraine shifting its priorities to another area, as happened in the "Kharkiv or Kherson first?" question.
Tying up the Russians, or more accurately, the Russians tying themselves up at Bakhmut has made the fighting and the delaying action important. But, again, the city itself is not important.
So, getting back to your point that Ukrainians have died there so it's important. Ukrainians have died and are dying in many places. That doesn't necessarily make the place important even if the fight and sacrifice was important.
You seem to be conflating the place with the event. Falling back from Bakhmut doesn't hurt Ukraine strategically. Russia tying up its forces there and attriting themselves does hurt Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It wouldn't be another Maidan, though, after the war. It would simply be an election.
What the person asking the question is probably asking is during the wartime martial law period where the Ukranian constitution prohibits holding elections under these conditions.
The opposition party in Ukraine has no shame or fear of consequences of prioritizing short term gain over longer term stability.
The opposition party has, probability along with Russian provacatuers, has already tried the political tact of condemning Zalensky as a dictator because the government isn't holding elections on schedule. Again, the Ukrainian constitution prohibits elections under the current conditions (it's as though someone suspected Russia would be back when the framing was considered, and that eventually Ukraine would be at war).
Zaluzhny was happy to be a pawn or an alternate face of national leadership. That's one reason he, and officers near or loyal to him, were recently being removed.
A Maidan type event where the population protests against Zalensky is very unlikely. There are much bigger fish to fry.
However, there actually was a more likely possibility that the opposition party would try to stage a coup by swaying Zaluzhny and enough military officers.
That scenario was and probably is still brewing. Politicians have no shame and put personal power over the good of the country and people even in places like the USA.
Asking what if another Maidan happened is like asking what if Putin turned into a nice guy. Sure, it COULD happen, but the probability is extremely low.
The impetus for the Maidan protests was Russia interfering in Ukraine's self governance. The only way that would play out against Zalensky is if he gave in to Western pressure to cede Ukranian territory for what would surely be only a temporary peace (Russia will absolutely try again if they are at all rewarded for either the 2014 or 2022 invasion).
Otherwise, for better or worse, Ukranians are governing themselves. So, the catalyst for another Maidan isn't there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lewisdoherty7621 - are you suggesting that Ukraine has a bunch of unaccounted for equipment at its national guard bases?
If that's what your suggesting, it's doubtful. First, Ukraine is a poor country and was never a military threat to Russia, as Russia claimed. Ukraine's military would've already been transferring that equipment or munitions to the east where there was a need to defend against regular probing attacks from the DNR and LNR forces occupying the east of Ukraine. That stagnant battle line existed for 8 years prior to the invasion in 2022. Even if it was low intensity, there was shooting.
Third, since the mobilization of Ukraine on a war footing, the only way stuff is sitting unused and unaccounted for in a national guard base is through corruption, which is a possibility. Remember, those units had troops. Those troops are going to want to take equipment and ammunition with them when they need to go fight.
4th, an accounting that you suggest probably took place when the various military units were organized into a national defense. Bean counters exist everywhere.
If you were talking about US state national guard inventories, I don't see how that's relevant other than they do have lots of old equipment that Ukraine could benefit from and would probably like to replace it with new equipment if the old stuff could be sent to Ukraine.
Second,
1
-
1
-
Regarding F-16 and it's "meh" impact on the Ukraine theater (snipped from a sub comment reply)
Russia doesn't control the skies. Both sides have proliferated ground based air defenses (GBAD) that prevent the other side from safely operating aircraft.
Russian air superiority jets stay over Russian controlled territory, protected by their GBAD and lob R37 long range missiles at Ukranian aircraft when they are detected by Russian AWACS over the black sea or Russian territory or ground based radar. These long range attacks are mainly to make the Ukrainians evade and stop trying to do whatever they're trying to do. The R37 was designed to hit B52 stratofortress bombers, not fighters and while very fast, isn't maneuverable.
Unfortunately, the F-16 offers no safe counter to either the Russian GBAD or the Russian R37 vollies.
The R37 has a range of up to 200 km. The US AIM 120 AMRAAM that the F-16 will carry has a range of about 60km. The F-16s will never get in range to attack Russian aircraft. The Russians will simply fly away from the F-16s and encourage the F-16s to fly over Russian GBAD to snack on a few missiles. The F-16s will decline the offer and the Russian jets will turn around and pop off a couple more R 37s. That's modern air combat. Air to air battles aren't "dogfights" and the F-16 brings nothing valuable to the Ukrainian air superiority situation.
Where the F-16 could be effective and where it will have to be effective if air superiority is the goal is SEAD or suppression of enemy defenses. The Ukrainians have already dabbled in firing Western HARM anti radiation (anti radar) missiles from Mig 29s. The F-16 will offer better integration of these missiles as well as other guided missiles like the AGM 65 maverick and various unguided munitions (bombs and rockets) which can all be valuable for elimination of Russian GBAD.
The problem is that Ukraine will lose jets and pilots doing this, hunting the things designed to shoot them down. The Russian PANTSIR system can integrate multiple launchers into each other's radar so that "dark" launchers can still fire at Ukrainians hunting the units with active radar.
Think Iraq 1, where the US blitzed Saddam's GBAD and where we (the US) lost aircraft and had pilots paraded on Iraqi TV. Then turn that up to 11 and you have what Ukraine is facing in trying to deal with Russian GBAD.
The F-16 will be similar to the Leopard, except even less significant. Ukraine operates the Mig 29. It's the functional equivalent of the F-16 in flight performance, munitions carrying ability, and mission profiles. The F-16 doesn't bring much to Ukraine that the Mig 29 doesn't already give them... Except more airframes that can be sacrificed in Ukraine's fight for independence, ultimately, from Russia.
What Ukraine REALLY needs is the Swedish Gripen. First, this jet can use the British Meteor, which the F-16 currently doesn't. This is a longe range air to air missile that would give rough parody to Russia's R37. It's a little shorter but designed to hit fighters and so, more of a threat than the R37.
The Gripen can also carry the Storm Shadow missile which the F-16 doesn't. Ukraine is currently using aging and few Su 24 aircraft to carry and launch the Storm Shadow. Having Gripen would ease the burden on the Su24s and allow Ukraine to continue using such long range missiles as the Soviet era jets wear out.
Gripen for long range air to air and Storm Shadow missions with F-16 for SEAD, close air support and locking down the Black Sea with AGM 84 Harpoon missiles in addition to combined use of ATACMS, decoys, S200s, etc would be an ideal combination to enable Ukraine to blitz Russian GBAD.
The problem arises as Ukraine closes distance to Russia. The ground launched anti air missiles can be inside Russian territory which means they're safe from Western or US weapons and free to shoot down F-16s over Ukraine.
The F-16 alone will be less of a game changer than Leopard tanks were. It's ironic that one of the best dog fighters ever built will see it's most significant use in the ground attack role in Ukraine and virtually no air to air combat (unless helicopters count).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He did address it. Having a fan isn't related to efficiency or heat output at all. If you take 1500 watts out of the wall, you are putting 1500 watts into the room. Period.
As for the idea that a fan will more efficiently heat a room because it's spreading the heat out faster, so it's going to run less and use less energy, it comes back to the 1500w in, 1500w out thing.
The fan may be "more efficient" at "spreading out the heated air" but this idea acts on our brains like an optical illusion. It's not more efficient at "heating the room" because we're limited to the fact that 1500 w of heat is 1500w of heat.
Also, you don't NEED a fan. Convection will occur regardless of whether there's a fan or not. The warmer air will spread itself out.
If want to heat the space faster, which is probably what most people think of as "more efficient", you'd need more heaters.
That would get around the problem of heating "efficiency" being limited to the watt rating of one heater.
Efficiency is near 100% in all these 1500w heaters. So, again it's a marketing and mental illusion thing to even use this term to compare different heaters of the same wattage.
Having a fan may help spread the heated air out faster. BUT, if the 1500 watts worth of heated air is spread out faster, your just thinning out the 1500w watts faster. Which means you'll need to run that unit the same amount of time as a natural convection unit that's spreading heat out slower.
Why? Because your still just spreading 1500w.
If you dump 1 bucket of water (turn on 1 space heater) in your living room, it will spread out x deep across the entire floor. If you were to use a broom and sweep the water outwards from where you dumped it, you get all of the floor wet faster, but still with 1 bucket worth of water. If you want to stand in deeper water (a warmer room), you need to dump another bucket. Now you have 2x water (heat) seeping throughout the entire floor (room your heating).
It's an odd example, but we've all seen water spread out. So you can visualize it, as opposed to air which is, hopefully, harder to see.
If the fan spreads air faster, that's you sweeping water away from the bucket. The entire floor gets a little wet faster. But, if you want deeper water on the floor or more heat in the room you need another bucket of water or you need to let the heater run longer.
Why? Again, because the heater with the fan is pulling 1500w from the wall, that's all it's putting into the room. The "spreads out faster" is a mind trick that I hopefully explained above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grahamstrouse1165 - the Russians are PLANNING to use them either as artillery or as stop-gap artillery while they re-barrel or build new actual artillery pieces. They are already using their newer tanks as supplemental artillery as gun barrels wear and artillery shells become scarce.
Unfortunately, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."
The fact that a T-55 has practically no gun elevation and a smaller shell than actual artillery, means it's going to have to be close enough to the action that it's going to end up in front line use as Ukraine uses it's more mobile and better equipped (thermal sights) IFV and tanks along with infantry to conduct maneuver warfare instead of the static warfare Russia has been doing.
As you point out, these museum pieces are actually "no tank" if it can't drive itself from the train to the battle due to drive train malfunction. Sure, Russia might build "hardy" or "simple" machines, but these things are 60 year old un-loved things that really have a best use as scrap metal.
Also, interestingly, you mentioned that tanks can no longer "be the tip of the speer". Oddly, despite Russia having developed capable anti tank missiles, I haven't heard a single report from Ukraine of Russia using one, not even on their BMP or BMD vehicles, which are designed to be equipped with one.
The issue with using tanks is that they need to be supported by infantry and, ideally, air power including helicopters to be able to identify and quickly act against infantry or other threats. A big part of the Apache's job is scouting. Unfortunately, you are absolutely right that modern missile defense has made the skies a very dangerous place if one doesn't have the tactical resources (cruise missiles) or intelligence to be able to identify and target such air defenses early on. Obviously Russia and Ukraine have each been on a different side of that coin.
It will be interesting to see how Ukraine handles it's armored actions with the better target acquisition capability of things like Bradley and Challenger for identifying and acting on threats quickly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JJM2222 some dogs might just want a reward. My dog just wants to be outside "working". She's not trained for anything specific, but she has an INTENSE nose and she can differentiate between a mouse and a chicken bone and find either in an open field we've never been to before.
If you actually spend time with a dog with an intense nose and watch them while they're using it, you will quickly see that they can very well differentiate scents and see how they behave when they detect something. The reward is in being able to go and do the sniffing.
That's with a properly selected dog. Add in proper training to alert to certain scents and you'll have a dog that's detecting what you want and doing it because they want to be sniffing. Working dogs (mine is a mix of Border Collie and Husky) want to be doing a job. That job is the reward. While a dog in training might get rewards like treats or ball, a dog at work with a good handler isn't getting any of that. As you point out, it could cue the dog. In the video, the dog didn't alert falsely, although it would probably credited with such skewing accuracy. The dog was cued to and then used as "probable cause".
With a sniffing dog, you're taking a dog who wants to work and training him to do the job that let's him use his nose. As the original comment mentioned, an error is going to be from the handler cueing a result (and, they aren't machines, they have bad days just like us). The dog knows what gets the handler excited. They're good at observing us, but they also understand how to do whatever they're trained for.
If you had something "interesting" on you, my dog would pull me towards you without any training. Walking her through a parking lot is sometimes funny and a bit scary, since nobody likes a narc. She's usually just detecting whatever road kill or detritus the car tires kicked up into the wheel well. But...I wonder what's in the cars when she goes for the trunk or doors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think my rescued border collie husky mix was quicked pretty bad or bad enough to traumatize her. Just seeing the clippers set her off into a "play fight" mode. Like she was thinking, "oh, I know this game!"
I had to pin her down and hold her with my body while keeping her head and arms restricted with my head and arms. Finally, she gave and just whimpered like it was going to be her end as I clipped the nails. I didn't quick her and didn't pull any paw fur. I took her out for a walk and she had extra spring in her step with her nails not bothering her.
Next time, I brought out the clippers and got the same reaction. I tried leaving them out, putting treats under the clippers, petting her with them on her arm while feeding treats. Nothing was desensitizing her. OK, pinned her down again for the fronts. I couldn't figure out how to do the back feet without risking her hurting herself trying to get away.
Took her to the groomer and she got the same reaction but was able to get them done do to the dog being up, her tools and technique being better and me warning her to avoid letting the dog see the clippers. Ironically, she said the dog was more weirded out by the dremmel than the clippers. I thought, hoped, the dremmel would be less of an issue since her problem was the clippers not the holding of her feet.
My previous dog had no issues with nail trims, so this is something I'll continue to work on. I got her over her fear of other dogs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jj007104 - I have an ethnic Russian friend who fled Donetsk (city in part of the region in eastern Ukraine that was taken by Russian proxies, not separatists) during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Initially, when I tried to tell her war was coming and to be ready to leave, she didn't believe me because, being Russian, she watched the Russian news on TV (TV stations from Russia) and online with Russian news sources. They all were saying everything was fine, no fighting, nothing to worry about.
She even blew me off saying, "no all that stuff is just in Kiev" regarding the Maidan revolution that had just taken place.
Finally when gunfire was audible, she tells me she's so confused because Russian and Ukrainian news say opposite things.
Luckily she left before the Russian proxies started shelling the city with captured artillery. Her grandmother wouldn't leave her home though and did die from injuries during an artillery strike.
A not on "separatists" in eastern Ukraine: there were no separatists until AFTER Russia took over the regions. Russia used proxy fighters, foreigners that they bussed in, mainly criminals and anarchists supported by Russian special forces who trained them and called in helicopter gunship air support when Ukraine tried to retake the areas.
After Maidan, even though there were some "anti Russian" murmers and potential legislation to make Ukrainian the sole official language, nobody in the eastern regions (Luhansk and Donetsk) cared because those regions were already mostly autonomous and governed themselves within the borders of Ukraine.
As an added bonus, the first president of the Donetsk People's Republic wasn't Russian OR Ukrainian.
The Russian people in Ukraine didn't pay much attention or care as to what was going on in Kiev and certainly weren't being persecuted. My friend didn't flee until the danger arrived FROM THE EAST, from Russia.
I'm not sure what reporting you saw on it, but that's my experience from talking to someone who lived there and researching what was going on so I could relay less confusing info to her about what was happening in the geopolitical realm and where the Russians were moving.
Unfortunately, we're playing the same game again. I'm having to watch the Russian invasion and give her outside updates that cut through some of the Russian and Ukrainian propaganda.
Speak the Truth channel is a great resource. It's a couple former military guys who are doing the best they can to vet information and update a map and provide discussions and context based on the operational history in our (USA) recent wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmoosmann - it makes zero sense for the Ukrainians to destroy a clear path across the river into the Russian held territory that Ukraine wants to get into AND, more importantly, in none of Ukraine's efforts to retake territory have they resorted to mass destruction of civilian areas (because Ukrainians don't want to destroy their own country).
On the other hand, Russia has previously blown thus dam during WWII for exactly the same reason, trying to prevent an enemy (Germany) from having an easy way to cross that river.
Also, Russia has time and again, since the 2014 invasion and continuing through the 2022 invasion, engaged in mass destruction of civilian areas, including in primarily "Russian speaking areas" where Russia allegedly was intending to save those people. Then, there's the attack on civilian infrastructure, power and water, in order to try to break the will of the Ukrainian population.
So, as the other commenter said, Russia has a history of this particular act and a precedent of attacking civilians in this war.
Facts > propaganda
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:50 re, Ukrainian gbad
It's mostly not the patriot systems that improved the longevity or sustainability of Ukraine's ground based air defenses. It's mostly a combination of all the much more numerous, less expensive, although shorter ranged, systems that have helped offset the dwindling supply of Ukraine's Soviet era missiles.
Instead of using an S300 to shoot down a cheap Shahid drone, they can use a cheaper missile,allowig the more expensive, irreplaceable, and longer range systems to be reserved more critical targets.
Remember, the leaked information is months old and sat online for several months before someone noticed and spread it.
Essentially, Russia acting on the leaked info is Russia playing a psy op on itself, victimizing themselves with misinformation.
Since Putin has apparently bought into his own propaganda by getting his world updates from the very Russian media that he controls what is said, this fits the Russian MO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have a friend who works in food service. He'd been a server or waiter for years. I asked him why, with all his experience serving, training, etc, why he didn't become a manager.
"I make more money than the manager with less responsibility."
The problem with tipping is that it's like commissioned sales. Some people try to do it who aren't cut out for it.
At a restaurant, there are absolutely different levels of service. The waiter doing the bare minimum, leaves your glasses empty without asking for a refill, takes forever fulfilling requests, doesn't verify if what the cook placed on the plate is correct, etc is the waiter working for the restaurant.
The waiter who never leaves my glass empty, who offers a complimentary something as a taster if I'm not sure what I want to eat or drink, who ensures what's on the plate is what I ordered before it arrives at my table, is prompt with fulfilling requests... THAT waiter is, effectively, working for ME. I appreciate his effort and respect his service above and beyond what the "minimum" would be and I'm willing to pay him for helping make my meal out an great experience.
That's where the people using tipped services also go wrong. At some point, we as a society, forgot we can do things ourselves, like cook food in our homes or go pick up our own items from a place.
In the case of delivery, like Door Dash, understand that person is NOT an employee of Door Dash. The delivery person is actually working for the person receiving the delivery with Door Dash as an intermediary, a broker, that sets up the order and handles billing of the customer and payment of the driver.
That fact aside, to equate it to the OG of delivery, pizza delivery, no tip service is when the driver didn't care if the toppings were slid all over as he cornered like he was at LeMans and the lid was smashed into the pie and he's late. He brought you the food that's the minimum the restraunt paid him to do. If he gets there quickly, the order is correct, he handled the pie gently and even brought the cheese and peppers you forgot to ask for, he's now gone above what was required and has earned a tip.
As far as door dash goes, there's a place to leave the tip in the order. Usually, I'm at the edge of the service range in whatever city or town I'm using the service. If there's 1 or less pizza shops willing to deliver, I know I'm out of typical range. So, I put a tip in the order, especially if I'd like the driver to walk it up to my hotel room instead of having to go down and pick up in the lobby. That's extra work for the driver and time he's not compensated for and again, outside of typical range and an extra walk in the hotel IS extra work.
If someone says they're going to tip in cash and the driver (remember, a door dash driver is NOT a door dash employee) does an excellent job and receives to cash tip as was stated in the order, then he's absolutely right to be pissed.
Sure, if there was simply one set fee, then this wouldn't happen. It would also price delivery out of reach of many people. As it is, you get pay for the service you want option. Cheap tip? Cheap service. I tip well and have only had 1 issue ever and that was a driver that was so eager to jump on my order that he doubled up but ended up taking forever on the delivery before mine. I pay more for better service (or service at all where there usually is none) and I'm able to do that because of the tip pay structure. Tipping extra is cheaper than me renting a car to go get my own food and bring it back to the hotel.
All that said, the REAL problem isn't tipping. The REAL problem is wage stagnation, person A not being properly rewarded at their job so they are unwilling or unable to pay Person B a tip for personal service that is above and beyond the minimum requirement.
The discussion about tipping being bad never acknowledges this because the workforce is so used be under rewarded that our initial mindset and reaction is to want something cheaper and not having to tip for good service is cheaper.
Instead of saying, "we should get rid of tipping", say "I should be earning enough for MY work that I can afford to reward someone who provides exemplary personal service!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SuSJoJ - - Climate change is real. However, humans are such snowflakes. We only have a 10,000 year perspective on a climate that has heated and cooled repeatedly over 4 BILLION years.
Source https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
If you think global warming is a problem, look at the earth's recent temperature history. ("recent" in geological terms, not human terms).
If humans had evolved in a different time, global COOLING would have been the buzzword problem.
The earth is warming, but is currently in an unusually cool period. Simply banning carbon emissions and slaughtering all the cows (methane) won't actually prevent climate change or prevent the earth's temperature from rising.
In order to maintain the current climate, we'd need things like solar reflectors in orbit. Instead of looking into these kinds of things, we're putting up satellites for better internet and completely failing to understand that if we want to survive, we're going to need to do what successful species have done for millenia... Adapt.
Climate change is real, but we're not talking about the radical things that could actually prevent it (again, zero emissions isn't going to make a dent).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My first real job was at McDonald's. In the 8 months there, I learned everything and took on extra responsibility, maintenence, opening, closing, whatever.
They liked to stick me in the drive thru because I didn't mess up orders or piss off customers. The office was next to the drive thru, so I'd read the manuals when it was slow and my other busy work was done.
For all my effort, I got 25 cents added to my $4.25 starting minimum wage rate.
A couple of the shift managers wanted the GM to make me a shift leader because I knew and could do everything and could be counted on. There was a "maybe" but then we got a new GM when ours went to open another store.
First, the new GM said no because I was only 17 and couldn't count the registers (but I could work one...). Second, the guy gives everyone a 25 cent raise that was on minimum.
Ultimately, there was a weekend night and someone called in sick. The evening manager was a good guy. So, when he asked me to stay and cover and help close, I agreed to work the double.
However, I told him that I would was scheduled to open and there was no way I could work a double, get just a nap and come back in to open. He said don't worry, I'll leave a note for the morning shift letting them know you helped me close and that you'll be in late.
I get woken up by my frantic mom saying work is on the phone. It's the GM asking why I'm late. I explain. He doesn't believe me, says there's no note (I saw the other guy write it) and that if I don't come in immediately I'm fired.
I reply that he can't fire me. He asks "why not?" To which I reply "because I just quit". He started a tirade that I hung up on...
I should note that this was in Texas and the GM had just moved down from New Jersey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We did land on the moon. However, none of the media we've seen is the original footage from the moon.
I watched an interview with a NASA historian and in order explain one inconsistency, you have to break your explanation for another inconsistency, repeat in a rabid circle while your defense of the media we've seen as being actually from the moon continually discredits your previous explanations.
The simple fact is that the moon missions were part of the Cold War. The real media from moon was out of focus (the chest mounted cameras had no viewfinder), poorly lit (because the astronauts weren't any more professional photographer than your average selfie taker (bad lighting), or simply didn't survive the photons hitting the film on the trip out and back through the Van Allen belts. The cameras aren't specially insulated.
As a Cold War operation to show American scientific superiority, film thar didn't result in crystal clear, focused, and well lit media wouldn't do.
So, substitute media that WAS clear, focused, and well lit was produced to achieve the expensive goal of the Lunar missions.
Again, the goal wasn't science. Science was a by product of the actual goal, to show American scientific superiority.
So, yes, we went to the moon. But the original media, if it still exists even, has never been seen by the public because it wasn't good quality media.
1
-
1
-
@massimookissed1023 - good. Now tell me how you'd conduct an experiment with photographic film to demonstrate the existence of photons. Then, tell me what film in the astronauts used was doing on its way to the moon and back.
Here's the thing: INDIVIDUALLY, any inconsistency can be plausibly explained away. However, when you try to explain all the inconsistencies, you start contradicting yourself.
Further if your wife or girlfriend's explanation of where she was all night, has this level of inconsistency, you probably want a paternity test or, better, a divorce.
Now, since you're the astute amateur photographer, explain how pictures have the subject of the shot on front of the + marks that were etched into the lenses.
Tip, they were added in after the photo was taken. According to the guy who designed the cameras that were used, there's no way to take a photo with that camera where the + etching isn't on top of the subject of the photo.
Staying on photography, how do you create multiple shadow angles with one light source?
Moving on, moon dust, according to astronauts, "sticks to everything" to the point that it was a problem. Well, except, apparently, the lunar module's landing pads which are never seen with dust.
You could argue the lander blew the dust away and since there's no atmospher, the dust just went off into space.
Plausible, until we look at the fact that it's the lack of atmosphere and lack of electrical grounding that allows the dust to stick to everything. The plausible explanation only holds up if the astronauts didn't walk near the lander...or the picture wasn't taken on the moon.
Again, these are just a few of the inconsistencies that exist with the media presented as authentic.
My main point is that it's time to declassify the actual media captured on the moon, if it still exists, and let us see it.
People like you that closed mindedly, doggedly refuse to look at both the entire case of inconsistencies as well as the individual inconsistencies that can't reasonably be explained are preventing us from seeing the actual media, if it wasn't destroyed for Cold War "reasons of national security".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Darbobski - You don't have to spend more in taxes, though.
"Aid to Ukraine" is 90% spent inside the United States. That aid is also just 5% of the defense budget (not the whole budget, JUST the defense budget).
Plus, the money is a loan. Ukraine is financing the US updating our arsenal by replacing older equipment and weapons sent to them with new.
Aid to Ukraine benefits American economic growth. It's also a heck of a bargain con considering that Putin's goal isn't just Ukraine. He wants his legacy to be rebuilding the Russian Empire. That means we'll be spending a lot more when he sends troops to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, etc and we're required to send aid, both equipment AND troops, under NATO's Article 5. That is, if Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine and his forces sent back to Russia.
Just sending equipment now and refilling our stock with new, financed by our loan to Ukraine is an amazing bargain!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
32:35 re, Ukraine and NATO
At the point where Russia is pushed out of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Russia will have ZERO reason to sign a "peace" treaty with Ukraine, and certainly won't with Putin in power.
Russia may agree to a cease fire or an armistice, but the situation will look like North and South Korea, still technically at war.
A country at war can't join NATO. For Ukraine to join NATO, Russia would somehow have to be convinced to a war ending treaty or the NATO Charter would have to be amended.
The former won't happen with Putin in control of Russia, even if "Russia" devolves into a country of just St Petersburg and Moscow. The latter wouldn't happen while Article 5 requires all members to assist a member that is attacked, which Ukraine has been.
So, Putin may actually be successful in ONE of his special operation goals, preventing Ukraine from joining NATO (by not agreeing to a war status ending peace).
It's anyone's guess if Putin's eventual successor would sign such a peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samer820 - I have a friend who lived in Donetsk, the Donbas region and fled as the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine landed on her doorstep.
The ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are and have been not "pro Russia". They are "pro leave us alone and quit using us as excuse".
The region was already mostly autonomous. There was no post maidan persecution of Russians in eastern Ukraine.
The original "separatist" fighters were foreigners, mostly criminals released from jail and anarchists, who were bussed and trucked into Ukraine and supported by Russian special forces "advisors" (who were basically leading the others).
My Russian friend's word for these people was "terrorists". Her grandmother was killed by them in an artillery strike on the city as the terrorists were moving in, driving out the Ukrainian defenders.
The revolution of 2014 was only a trigger of invasion for Putin because he lost his stooge government (Yankovic was the equivalent of Lukashenko in Belarus).
Nothing changed after Maidan as far as the Russians in Ukraine were concerned. There was talk of making Ukrainian the sole official language of Ukraine. However, as mentioned, the eastern regions were already mostly autonomous and weren't affected by talk of such "anti Russian" legislation.
The trigger of the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was that Putin has never viewed Ukraine (or any former Soviet or Warsaw Pact state) as independent from Russia. Putin had, on his mind, an excuse to invade (saving the Russian people...who didn't need saving).
It was a land grab, as the current invasion is a land grab. Oh, wait. If you believe the propaganda, Russia isn't invading Ukraine. Russia is only in Donetsk and Luhansk to keep the peace.
You see the problem with believing anything Putin says? Putin said he wasn't invading Georgia. Then he invaded Georgia. Putin said he wasn't invading Ukraine (told that Directly to France's president the day before the invasion!). Then Putin invaded. Putin said he was just sending troops to keep the peace and protect Russians in eastern Ukraine. Then Putin sends troops throughout the country, many of whom don't even realize where they are until they start getting shot at.
If you hear that people in eastern Ukraine or Crimea are "pro Russian" realize they've been fed the same type of propaganda, Putin's lies, for 8 years.
Those people aren't "pro Russian". They are "pro leave us alone," and I mean both countries.
Again, the trigger for the 2014 invasion was Putin losing his stooge leader and seeing an opportunity for a land grab. Period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MoonShocked - did you adjust it to the highest (of 3) quality settings?
I've found that stream video quality is mainly based on available bandwidth and screen. I usually watch on my laptop and I use the lowest setting (mainly for bandwidth reasons, but the lowest is plenty watchable).
A couple times when I was on tenuous hotel wifi, Amazon actually refunded the cost of a rental I paid for because they noticed bandwidth resulted in very low quality.
While I usually watch free Prime streaming options, one HUGE benefit of Prime over Netflix is that I can actually pay extra to rent something if it's new and I want to watch it now, instead of being stuck with whatever is included in the monthly fee.
On my phone, I use the highest setting and quality is crystal clear.
Prime also includes a music streaming service, although I already had a good channel developed in Pandora /Rhapsody, so I haven't tried the Prime option.
Iirc, there's a discount on Audible, which Amazon owns, and I did use that for a while, to get audio book versions of a few things.
Those are in addition to the shopping benefits of Prime. If people buy stuff from Amazon or are already paying a fee just for streaming, Amazon Prime is a bargain.
And, again I've only encountered quality issues when bandwidth was low. It's unfortunate your experience wasn't as good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the Ukrainian theater, aircraft aren't being shot down by aircraft, or at least VERY few. There's no "dog fighting", like seen in the movies. The only air to air combat is in the form of Russian jets hiding over their ground based defenses (GBAD) and lobbing long range R37 missiles at Ukrainian jets from over 100km away. This usually just forces the Ukranian jets to evade and interrupts their mission. It's the GBAD that is actually shooting down aircraft on both sides.
This is why it's imperative that Ukraine receives long range fires (Storm Shadow, SCALP, ATACMS, GLSDB, Taurus - US and Germany are lagging in providing these weapons) so that Ukraine can blitz the known radar, GBAD, and command and communications locations while also using drones along with HARM anti radar equipped F-16s to hunt Russian GBAD to make operating aircraft safer.
Basically, Russia will shoot down the F-16 just as they've shot down existing Ukrainian aircraft. They'll be doing it with GBAD, not Russian aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dickhead9594 - Seriously, lol at your outrageous, misinformed statements. My friend IS from eastern Ukraine and still has friends and family, both in Donbas and primarily Russophone cities still under Ukraine control.
There has been no genocide in eastern Ukraine. In fact, when I informed my friend, pre invasion, that it looked like Putin was up to something more than bluster and again coming "to save the Russians in Ukraine" (she doesn't pay attention to news) she called her people in eastern Ukraine and had no idea what she was talking about. There hasn't been genocide, obviously, only skirmishes on the 2014 front line and Ukraine hadn't done offensive operations since the Minsk ceasefire.
Her people said that they were confused by the Donbas "government" offering to move people to safety in Russia (there were vids of this) because nobody was attacking. She said that they thought it meant Ukraine was going to begin attacks against Donbas.
Of course, now we see it was Russia who sent troops into Donbas and began the fighting with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
So, there's certainly not been genocide in eastern Ukraine. There certainly hasn't been artillery shelling of eastern Ukraine by Ukraine military as is also a frequent misinformation claim. In 8 DAYS Russia turned several Ukraine cities into rubble. In 8 YEARS of shelling, there would be no buildings left in eastern Ukraine and no people either, with no homes or jobs and that would be visible from the air or satellite images. Of course, the vids of people leaving eastern Ukraine ahead of the alleged Ukrainian invasion of...eastern Ukraine also prove that people and buildings still exist, however fake the idea behind the video is.
When Russia has had enough of their troops dying, they can go home and pay reparations to rebuild Ukraine for decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobmex5362 - technically, Earth is actually still in a geological ice age period. It's been much warmer is warming out of this colder period without any help from Man. Yes, the rate accelerated in the previous 200 years, but the destination is the same, Earth's climate was always going to warm up.
Then, in about 50,000 years, according to climate models, it will enter another cooling phase.
Man doesn't have the technology to affect the things which actually drive climate change, tectonic and volcanic activity is a huge part of it. The ocean and atmospheric currents move heat around the planet. In the past, there weren't the same oceans we have today. In the future, our current oceans won't exist. Therefore, the climate will change because the way heat is moved will change.
Then there's the distance from the Sun. Earth doesn't orbit in a perfect circle. The sun also varies it's heat output. The tilt of Earth's axis affects the way the solar radiation warms the planet.
The moon's distance affects our climate both by creating ocean tides and by stabilizing Earth's rotation speed. The moon is moving away from Earth and, eventually, Earth will lose it.
Not burning fossil fuels will do all of nothing to stop climate change.
Regarding humans and climate change, ask yourself what happened to the ice sheets that were covering much of North America recently (in geological terms)? They melted. They melted, huge amounts of ice, due to warming of the climate long before Man started burning even twigs in significant amount.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@figleaf8948 no problem. It's Russia that currently controls or occupies Crimea.
However, there is a similar principle in Ukraine controlled areas. I have a friend living closer than I'd like to the Zaporizhia area. When there was the fear that Russia was going to sabotage the nuclear power plant, I told her she needed to get away from that area and sent her bus ticket money. When she got to Lviv, near Poland, she said it looked more like Poland than the Ukraine she was used to. I asked for pictures. She explained that she'd try but it wasn't a good idea to take pictures because people become suspicious that she's a spotter relaying target information back to Russia.
You might recall that there was a pizza restaurant that Russia hit with 2 missiles. It was frequented by Ukrainian military officers and their families.
Whether anyone actually is sending pictures of this or that restaurant or apartment building or if Russia is flinging darts randomly at map, I can't say. However, the Russian missile and drone terror attacks are very real and really stressful since the Shaheed drones are loud and can be heard flying around and the distant booms from missile and drone explosions make sleep difficult (according to my friend who's back in her city closer to the front).
So, while Ukraine doesn't mind images of the aftermath getting out so the world can see what Russia is doing, people are wary of anyone taking pictures because of the concern, real or imagined, that it's a Russian spotter and the stress from living with it for 2 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the democrats put up Harris against Trump, I started saying they were handing the election to Trump. I got no replies anywhere that agreed with me and many that said I was an idiot. Note, I'm not a Trump supporter. I was trying to warn people.
If we were ready for a woman president, it would've been Hillary (who also lost to Trump). After Obama, who was as divisive as Trump, America wasn't ready for another black president.
Putting up a black woman was giving the election to Trump.
Running a woman against Trump after he defeated Hillary in an election and Nikki Haley (who would've made a better president than Trump, Harris, or Biden) was just handing him the election. Reality doesn't care about how woke someone is.
Kamala, despite being personally accomplished, was the poster child for DEI, Didn't Earn It. It sounds like she surrounded herself with handlers who were very afraid of allowing her to talk unfiltered...which indicates that maybe her accomplishments weren't actually earned. The control freakness insinuates dishonesty, regardless of if there was dishonesty or she did earn everything she accomplished.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:06 This nonsense is part of the Reason for the military shake up in Ukraine earlier in the year. Politicians being trash everywhere, the Ukrainian opposition party was trying to push this narrative that by obeying the stipulations set in the Ukrainian Constitution that Zalensky is usurping democracy and not a legitimate president. Certain people in the military structure, who also had political motivations (Zaluzhny), were being either ignorant that they were being used as patsies or actively colluding with the opposition party and their was a legitimate coup threat to the Ukrainian government during wartime and when that elected government was following the Constitution. So, Zaluzhny and officers loyal to him that might be vulnerable to suggestion by the opposition party were removed from the military command.
Obviously, a military coup in Ukraine would cause worldwide support evaporate and the country would succumb to Russia. Those Ukrainian politicians were happy to end their country if it meant they might rise to power for a moment until Russia had them executed (because nobody can trust a traitor).
Besides all that, if Ukraine tried to hold elections, Russia would attack the voting centers with drones and missiles (just as Russia deliberately attacks hospitals, schools, and apartments). Civilian casualties don't bother Russia.
And, the Ukrainian citizens of occupied regions would cast their vote how, exactly?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How much Trump and Ivana Coin did Putin buy...that's what drives Trump's decisions.
. Trump is not pragmatic. A pragmatic American leader would support Ukraine in stopping the preliminary volley of the Russian invasion of Europe.
Trump as a corporate raider doesn't explain it. That person wants maximum profitability. Ukraine is the best bet for global financial security. Russia is weaker than Ukraine. This is true if for no other reason than Russia has no friends and Ukraine at least still had Europe.
Trump prolonging and encouraging global chaos is NOT good for America.
Trump was talking to Putin while he was a civilian.
Putin thinks Trump is an idiot or rube and has nothing but contempt for Trump. Putin thinks Trump is so weak minded that Putin brought an attractive female interpreter to meetings, during Trump's first administration, as a distraction to Trump.
There is no "Russian Reset" with Putin in charge of Russia. If we give anything to Putin to reset relations, Putin will simply cross that off the list, ignore it, and ask for something more to affect a reset. Putin, Russians, only understand strength. They see magnanimous or friendly gestures as pure weakness to be taken advantage of... And that's exactly what's playing out...
Well, except that Putin has been able to put money directly into Trump's pocket anonymously, in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, by buying Trump and Ivana Coin.
Bad for America, bad for Ukraine, bad for global stability but good for Trump's retirement. That's Trump's foreign policy motivation.
It is ABSOLUTELY NOT PRAGMATIC to align the United States with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. That's actually the OPPOSITE of "pragmatic" but very definitely "problematic".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gaze73 - I agree and you're right that being more alpha will help in one regard.
However, you missed his point. Women are not loyal. They will cheat.
"Be more alpha" has 2 problems.
First, if you're "more alpha" and a woman is cheating WITH you, cheating on another guy, she's STILL cheating.
It's an unnerving thing to wake up and hear a girl you spent the night with having what sounds like a conversation with someone she knows intimately, asking who that was, and getting "my fiance" in reply.
There's a momentary scramble for pants before she adds, "don't worry, he's out of town." Followed by, "I didn't mention last night because you seemed like a decent guy and I though you wouldn't sleep with me if you knew."
More alpha? She's still cheating.
Second, there's always a bigger fish. Being "more alpha" won't stop a girl from jumping into bed with a guy who is "even more alpha."
Or, from hopping into bed with a guy she thinks can improve her career or even just earn some other nice gift.
"Being more alpha" doesn't do anything to fix the fact that women are cheats. That's the OP's point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bagstrawberries3854 - You're obviously not an adult because your "dating pool" is artificially limited to people near your own age. If you're in your late teens to mid 20s,you ALREADY ARE dating the "younger women" and will likely continue to find women in that age group more physically attractive as you age.
As you age, you're not going to care about what degrees a woman earns, what corporate or personal successes she's had, etc. You're going to want a girl who has time to be attentive to you and treat you well, can make a sandwich and fetch a beer without a scene, and one who will naturally tend to be more submissive because she's younger than him. Women want the man to lead. That's often just naturally a comfortable fit if the leader is older.
So, it's common for men to date younger women. Again, in YOUR specific case, "younger" might tend towards "illegal", so your perspective is skewed and you don't have an adult's perspective.
First, women are attracted to success (or the potential for success) and usually, for men, greater success is achieved as he ages.
Second, younger women are usually more physically attractive than older women. You don't realize this yet because your same age dating pool currently includes the younger women.
A woman is physically in her peak attractiveness from her late teens to about 30. Yes, I realize that you consider 30...or 25, even, "old". As I said, when you become an adult, you'll have perspective on age.
It's a true statement that youth is wasted on the young, but again, you're too young to understand that.
Finally, if "younger women" are all "gold diggers", then your entire same age female dating pool are gold diggers. Being attracted to success isn't necessarily the same thing as a "gold digger".
I'd say a gold digger is a woman who continually monkey branches, marries, and divorces for her own profit (or a woman who lands one big fish and filets him). That certainly does happen.
However, a 25 year old woman dating a 35 or 40 year old man isn't necessarily a gold digger. She's attracted to his success and the confidence that success and life experience has brought him. He's attracted to her physically more than a woman his age who's crashed into "The Wall" (about age 30 where women's attractiveness drops off).
From 18 years or so, a man's and woman's attractiveness rises or declines inversely to their age.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bagstrawberries3854 - look, I realize now that since you're a female I'm not going to be able to help you understand with logic.
From my original comment, the takeaway is this: you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
If you want a good relationship, marriage, and children you need to keep your eyes open for a partner in your 20s. After 30,your options decrease exponentially and the likelihood of you finding "someone better" than the guys you've dated up to that point becomes increasingly less likely.
Also avoid racking up a high body count, number of sexual partners. Here's another feminist myth that woman can be as promiscuous as men and not be adversely affected. More partners makes it more difficult for a woman to pair bond, or bond with her mate.
Also, keep in mind that it's up to YOU to choose the father of your children. You can choose a good guy who's going to stick around and help raise them and care for you but may not be "exciting" or you can choose a guy who will leave you a single mom (further decreasing your chances of finding a good relationship partner) but who will be more exciting for the limited time you're together before he moves on to the next flavor of the week.
Resources you may want to consider are Corey Wayne to help you understand relationships, especially from the male perspective to help you find a good partner and Jordan Peterson, to help you understand your own actual, evolutionary motivations that may not be obvious to you and even counterintuitive to what you expect.
Again, you can't have it both ways. Best of luck to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petermustermann8622 - He seems to have been a very proficient small unit commander, lieutenant, and when he's talking about things related to that, local tactical stuff, he's got good info. He seems to have gotten out before making captain (otherwise he'd have more understanding of the difference between a tactical situation and strategic), which is odd for someone who was a good Lt.
He's never mentioned it, that I know of, but I suspect he ended up with a TBI and left because of that. It seems to also fit based on how some of his stuff is VERY good (the small unit stuff) and some of his vids are very bad (things relating to the wider war, big picture). He could just be lazy in researching or ADD and can't get himself to sit still and research an update. But, that doesn't really fit with him being very knowledgeable about the stuff that he has experience doing. If he did end up with a TBI, that might explain why he kept what he was good at but has trouble expanding his thinking and learning outside that. Or, I could be full of S.
I kind of hope I am off track because that means he wasn't injured, but then I kind of hope my suspicion is right because if not, that means he's just lazy in not researching the issues. I try to give him a pass and just offer corrections like this for viewers. However, because his channel is HALF good, it's really annoying that he won't force himself to research things like what a BTR4 is and learn more about strategy (his incessant going on about how Bakhmut was a better idea than Zaporizhia or that Ukraine should've attacked in the spring mud ffs) to make the channel all around good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't like umbrellas. They're annoying to carry around. If it's not raining, they are only somewhat useful as a parasol, but I'd look ridiculous. If it's cloudy but not rainy, they're totally useless. If it's windy and rainy they are, again, a nuisance and almost totally useless.
Suffice it to say, I don't like umbrellas and I have many legitimate reasons.
So, when I walk outside on a rainy day (sans umbrella, of course) and someone quips that it's a great day for having an umbrella and that I should get one, I'm livid. I don't like umbrellas!
I have drawn my line in the sand. As long as I defend my argument, my viewpoint, then I'm correct. The instant I acknowledge that it might be a good day to have an umbrella, I lose. I lose, even if "losing" would mean remaining dry and being able to walk comfortably outdoors in the rain instead of trying to do the awkward half trot half walk thing while trying to hold something over my head.
No. I'll do the silly rain shuffle, if I must, as long as I can be right, correct, and a winner!
Shit. Nvidia, it's raining out. Just get a fucking umbrella for the day. It doesn't make you wrong or a loser. It just means you're willing to see things from the perspective of someone who knows how to stay dry in the rain!
Recently, I read an article on the psychology of debate. It was related to the divisive and polarized nature of politics, but much of the psychology is applicable to Nvidia's behavior.
Nvidia's response is linked to human nature. We don't want to be wrong. We definitely don't want someone else telling us we're wrong. We damn sure don't want to admit we're wrong to someone who's telling us we're wrong.
It's very difficult to change someone's mind once they've picked a viewpoint or position because it becomes an emotional experience. Facts carry little weight in such a situation.
I have an RTX 2070. I wasn't (and still am not) interested in ray tracing. That was just the generation of hardware that was current when I needed a replacement.
Ray tracing capability isn't a concern for me. Framerate and overall quality per price value is what's important to me.
As a gamer, I'm interested more in the performance tests for most games rather than a few cherry picked games that are built around a specific technology, especially a particular brand's version of the technology.
Nvidia is making a mistake typical of many companies. Instead of listening to the negative feedback and working to improve, they circle the wagons and go defensive. In this case, their defense is also toeing the boundry of misrepresenting their product because they are are trying to silence reviews that describe "normal use" test results.
It is completely unacceptable for a business leader to not be able to avoid this trap. I work with a company who's management team has a "my way or the highway" attitude and is VERY reluctant to consider feedback or input that didn't originate from within that management team. This is true despite the company being ISO certified and having a procedure for acknowledging, evaluating, and responding to such.
Nvidia obviously has this same management problem and is leaving improvement on the table, cutting off their nose to spite their face, simply because they are using emotions instead of logic and facts or data to make decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Triple_J.1 -Westerners who support Russia or are against us giving Ukraine military aid really need to take a moment to consider WHY we have these weapons, why the weapons were designed built.
We don't have our arsenal to fight guys in sandals in a desert. That's just what we do when we're bored, apparently.
The reason these weapons exists, various missiles, Abrams, Bradley, various SAM systems is to destroy Russian military equipment (and possibly Chinese, but primarily Russian).
Ukraine is spending the blood to do with these weapons what they were built for. Russia is not and has never been a friend of the USA, despite some "Republicans" thinking such because Putin was doing things to manipulate media in favor of Trump (Trump is not a Republican).
Anyway, ya. This stuff is doing what it was built to do. And an enemy of the Western, democratic world is neutering itself in Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would say to someone like him that he needs to realize first that women do not "love" the same way men do.
In business, there's a saying, "Ya, but what have you done today?"
The implication is that you're only as valuable as what you are currently providing. Your past successes, contributions, and loyalty are worth very little, if anything.
This is how women "love". You need to provide something, today, for her to care about you. This "something" ideally is an emotional experience.
Seen a hot girl with a broke, unfit guy? He's good at tweaking her emotions. Make her laugh. Make her angry. Make her cry. Make her laugh.
Never tell her how you feel. If she knows how you feel, there is no mystery. She doesn't need to expend energy figuring you out. She misses out on the emotional ups and downs of wondering how you feel.
That reddit guy is like many dudes that didn't have a man in there life who could teach them how to be a man. Humans learn behaviors. We need a teacher.
As Joker points out, often that teacher is a woman, especially in a divorced family. Women teach men how to be emotional, beta males. This is, incidentally what many women describe that they want in a man "nice", "loyal", etc.
Ironically, women have evolved to specifically NOT be attracted to these qualities.
So, realize that women don't love the same way men do. Realize you must provide emotional experiences to keep her interest and attraction. Never tell her how you feel. Tell her "no". Learn about "shit tests" and how to pass them.
Realize that having a girlfriend won't make you magically happy or content if you aren't already.
If you need to heal past hurts and strengthen your mental and emotional foundation, I recommend RSD Owen or RSD Free Tour channels that have a lot of vids dealing with this. The founder was big in teaching pickup, but now is leaning more towards self help after realizing that was a big part of what he was teaching along with pickup.
1
-
1
-
@kenho-wr5ul2rh7m - you need to quit getting your "facts" from Russian propaganda resources.
NATO never agreed to disband after the Soviet Union failed.
NATO never agreed to not include former Soviet states that were seeking protection from Russia's inevitable return. Further, NATO hadn't "expanded east". Former Soviet states, previously independent nations before being subjugated by Russia, fled west.
The distinction is important. NATO didn't move east and force those nations to join. Those nations chose to seek assistance in protecting their sovereignty.
Why did the conflict in Ukraine start? It started because the US had a misguided role in encouraging Ukraine to give up its nuclear deterrent. The war in Ukraine (as in Georgia) started also because these countries were not admitted to NATO, despite their request, as a misguided, unofficial appeasement to Russia.
A further reason for the conflict in Ukraine is Putin's anger at Russia not being a world super power. When Putin told Dubya not to invade Iraq, Dubya paid Putin no heed. Putin decided that this occurred, probably rightly so, because Russia had become a weak 3rd world, large but poor and technologically backward nation. Russia's power and ability to project or bluff that power across the world was a far cry from the 2nd Russian Empire, the Soviet Union.
This incident, Iraq 2, is probably the actual spark point for the conflict in Ukraine as Putin seeks to rebuild the Russian Empire so that the world will once again take Russia seriously.
Unfortunately, Russia, under Putin's guidance, has merely shown the world how weak and backward Russia really is. Putin wants to project power across the world but can't even project power in his own backyard.
Ironically, this impotence is both fueling Putin's fervent insistence on continuing the effort in Ukraine (to rebuild the Russian Empire) while at the same time actually further weakening Russia (both militarily due to lost equipment that it doesn't have the capacity or technology to replace and economically with oil and gas revenue down 45% with the war simultaneously drawing more money from Russia's waning foreign currency reserves).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As great as the F-16 is, it's missing a counter to the Russian R37 long range air to air missile that according to Ryan and Perun, Russia is lobbing at Ukrainian jets from from the safety of their own ground based air defenses (gbad).
AMRAAM has only half ish of the range. Ukraine really needs the Gripen and its Meteor missile which will pretty much disable the Russian long range attacks.
Unlike the Russian R37, which was designed to hit B-52 bombers and isn't very maneuverable, the Meteor was designed to hit more agile targets.
So, Russia would be risking losing a jet in order to lob a missile at a Ukrainian plane that mainly just causes the Ukrainian to evade. This cancels the mission, but usually doesn't kill the aircraft.
The Gripen and F-16 would completely level the playing field. If Russia wants to lob long range missiles, Ukraine could do it better. If Russia wants to lob cruise missiles from ships in the Black Sea, Ukraine could hunt them (F-16 using harpoon covered by the Gripen and meteor).
Either way, bad news for Putin, good news for Ukraine and American defense manufacturing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
15,000 years ago, North America was covered by a sheet of ice. Where did the ice go??
Around 15k years ago, the ice covering North America began to melt as the Earth's climate began to warm.
This warming started about 15,000 years before humans began emmiting carbon into the atmosphere.
Humans are insignificant to the planet.
We just don't live long enough to have the perspective of how little time we've been here compared to how long Earth has been here.
As individuals, we live perhaps 100 years. The average temperature of the planet will be about the same when we die as when we were born. We know what the climate is like in our very brief window of personal existence. It's difficult for us to imagine it being in a constant state of change, both warming and cooling.
The climate has warmed and cooled in cycles for 4 billion years, all without any intervention or encouragement from Man until the most recent 200 years or so.
200 years ago, before man started emitting carbon in significant amount, the Earth was in an ice age period where temperatures are cooler but warming up as Earth heads toward exiting the ice age period of the climate cycle
200 years is completely insignificant to the planet. Today, we're still in the same ice age and, even if no more carbon was emitted into the atmosphere AND all carbon that humans had emitted over the previous 200 years was sequestered and removed from the atmosphere, the Earth WOULD CONTINUE WARMING out of the current ice age.
We do not have the technology to prevent the earth from warming...or from cooling. In about 50,000 years, still in the current ice age, the planet will enter another cooling phase before again warming. It will do this several times before warming out of the current ice age.
Yup, in 50,000 years, global COOLING will be the crisis we need to "save the planet" from. Wrap your head around that if you're hoping "going green" or being "carbon nuetral" will prevent climate change.
The REAL drivers of climate change are the sun, the Earth's distance from the sun as we orbit it, Earth's tilt on its axis, geological activity in the Earth's core and up the crust, volcanic activity that will throw ash into the atmosphere, the distance from the moon to Earth, and extra planetary threats (meteor Impacts) in combination with the air and ocean currents around the planet.
We don't have the technology to affect ANY of the actual things that that cause significant change of the Earth's climate.
Yes, since man has been emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the current warming trend has increased in magnitude.
No, it doesn't matter. The Earth was going to get much warmer than it is today even if humans didn't exist, AND Earth would cool down again and repeat the cycle until the sun expands into a red giant and completely destroys the planet as the star expands outward to occupy the region Earth currently orbits at.
But, don't worry. Before that happens, Earth will lose its grip on the moon (which is slowly orbiting farther and farther away). That could end life on the planet as it wreaks havoc on how our ocean and atmospheric currents work combined with an increase in the planet's rotation speed (progressively shorter days) as the sun begins to push harder on the planet without the counterbalance of the moon slowing the earth's rotation.
As I said, we don't have the technology to stabilize and maintain Earth's climate.
Humans are insignificant to the planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm glad Russia allowed Ryan access to the damn so he could conduct an analysis.
0:16 "doesn't mean that Russia isn't responsible" So, basically, your thumbnail calling it negligence was click bait designed soley to be controversial and help drive traffic to your paid substack? I see.
Keep in mind that Russia intentionally closed the gates to raise the level of the reservoir. In fact, the water was actually over topping the damn before the failure. That fact, that Russia intentionally raised the water level higher than the dam was designed to support, makes the dam failure INTENTIONAL, not mere "negligence" as you suggested.
Imagine this: You're about to cross the street. I see you about to cross the street. I call my friend, who's parked along that street, and tell him to accelerate through intersection. I fail to stop you from crossing the street (by grabbing you, yelling, or other means available to stop you). You are hit by the car.
Now, choose ONE statement that describes my culpability:
A) You were hit by the car because of my negligence in failing to stop you from stepping into the street when I knew both that the car was coming and that you were walking toward the street.
B) You were hit by the car because I intentionally set into motion a chain of events that would cause you to be hit by the car.
Negligence or Intention?
Russia is responsible AND the dam failure was intentional, even if explosives weren't used. If we make the above example more accurate, I had also previously stated that I was going to have you run over by a car at that intersection.
As for that last point, explosive use, my suspicion is that this video is going to age as well as your "Kerch Straight bridge can't be attacked" video, which you never issued a correction for after it WAS attacked. Russia placed explosives, threatened to blow the dam, and even has a history of blowing up that dam when an enemy was conducting an offensive in that area (Germany vs Soviet Union, WWII).
Jake Broe channel put together a 19 reason list of reasons pointing to a deliberate act by Russia. Blancirio channel, who covered the Oroville, California dam FAILURE put together a good comparison of the drone footage from after the recent Ukraine incident with 1st person view of the dam and turbine house before the incident. He called the Nova Kakhovka dam incident an EXPLOSION.
Time will tell, but I believe that the dam was blown, at the turbine house. The failure was midway through the turbine house, where Russia had admitted placing explosives when they first began threatening to blow up the dam. The failure didn't initiate at the gates where the water was over topping the dam. It's too perfect for it to be a natural failure.
Then, add in all the other 19 facts about the timing of the incident that Jake Broe points out and it would require monumental belief in pure coincidence to try and argue the dam failure wasn't intentional and only slightly less monumental naivete to believe that Russia didn't make good on their threat to blow up the dam in light of Ukraine beginning offensive operation in that area.
I'm not going to watch your video on this. Your click bait thumbnail and first 16 seconds told me all I need to know.
What I WILL watch is Perun channel's video on the incident, should he put one together. The difference between you and Perun is that you don't care about being right. You care about being quick enough with your video that the event is still fresh in hopes of sounding authoritative on the matter so that you can drive traffic to your paid service (I suppose this method of fast over accurate reporting is just coincidence that you've recently decided, according to some comments, to become a youtube star full time).
I'll be eagerly awaiting your correction vid regarding the Kerch Straight bridge attack AND your correction vid on the Nova Kakhovka dam explosion. Until I see you admit your mistakes, you have no more credibility than Tucker Carlson, a wannabe Twitter star, who just spouts Russian talking point misinformation.
FYI, a message from a friend living near the incident used the term "blew up" when I mentioned the dam and asked if they were OK where they are.
Perhaps, since you're allowing yourself to be manipulated or willfully putting out nonsense, since driving views is now your day job, Russia will allow you access to the CC footage where it will show that the dam failed as opposed to blew up.
Shame on you, Ryan, you're better than this.
Or, shame on me for letting you trick me into thinking that you're better than this type of misinformed, fast but inaccurate, need-to-drive-views "reporting".
For people interested in the timing of this incident, I do highly recommend Jake Broe channel vid "Yes - Russia destroyed the dam" where he discusses 19 reasons pointing to an intentional, not merely negligent, act. 19 facts that, apparently, don't exist in whatever alternate universe Ryan Mcbeth lives in and is "reporting" from.
As mentioned, the blancolirio channel also has a good vid showing the Nova Kakhovka incident area. He covered the Oroville, California dam failure and primarily covers air safety incidents in detail.
And, subscribe to Perun channel so you don't miss it if he puts together an actually researched piece on the dam incident.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GARDENER42 While you're correct that Russia violated the text of the agreement, the US and UK violated the spirit of the agreement which was that we'd guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity. The fact is that there was absolutely no provision for such in the document other hopes and good will. The document had no teeth and any assumed guarantee of protection ended when Bill Clinton, accidental evil genius who tricked Ukraine into giving up its deterrent and gave US NAFTA, left the office of president.
The only provision in the document related to aiding Ukraine if its sovereignty was violated is that if someone uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, Ukraine can appeal to the UN for help. Keep in mind, Zalensky has openly mocked the UN because the organization is farcical, with Russia (a hostile and belligerent nation that has invaded 2 of its neighbors since Fuhrov Vladimir Vladimirovich took the crown) having a permanent seat on the Security Council and has veto power.
Russia could use nuclear weapons on Ukraine and Ukraine could appeal to the UN for help, per the Memorandum, and Russia could veto any action to help Ukraine. The actual document and its text is trash, worth as much as a 5 Ruble note. That's why I say the spirit of the document, which anyone can see was trading security assurances for giving up the nukes.
Again, Zalensky has highlighted how Ukraine currently feels about Western "security assurances" related to any potential peace settlement as related to their prior experience with such.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:44 For any pro Russian types or other people who thought Ukraine's SMO in Kursk was a waste of resources and effort, besides the known benefits of moving 60,000 Russian troops out of eastern Ukraine to fight inside of Russia, the hedge against land for peace schemes in which Ukraine previously had no Russian territory to trade, and the general embarrassment of really making the Russian army the 2nd strongest army...in Russia, there was another key benefit to the Kursk operation.
The hole cut into the Russian border allowed Ukraine to move operatives, advisors, and others to move into Russia for the purpose of gathering reconnaissance, post attack assessment of drone and other attacks, and coordination, supplying, and training of Russian partisans who don't support Putin or the oligarchs.
The message is clear that Ukraine could do more, if they can eliminate high ranking officials and this isn't the first such attack made.
If Russians don't like being attacked inside Russia, Russia can end such attacks immediately by withdrawing from Ukraine and signing a truce.
The message is also to Trump and our weak US leadership that Ukraine can fight dirtier off the battlefield if we aren't willing and sensible enough to equip them to fight on the battlefield and defend their skies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikatu - the thing is, how are those missiles valued?
If 3 missiles were bought in 2000 and given away in 2023 (to a friendly nation that's been invaded by an enemy nation), you're right that 3 will be purchase to replace them.
Now, are those missiles given away valued at their 2000 purchase cost, their 2023 replacement cost, or something else?
Then, there's the issue of equipment that won't be replaced. Such as, a bunch of infantry fighting vehicles that were paid for decades ago and have been sitting in storage and would never be used again, but are stored "just in case".
What is the value of those vehicles, in aid terms. There's no replacement cost because they aren't being replaced. Is their value, the cost that was originally paid decades ago, their current replacement cost (even though they aren't being replaced), or something else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
cj p - I agree that the normal, seasonal strains of flu kill more people annually than covid19 has, so far.
The problem with covid19 is that since there is zero immunity in humans to it, everyone is getting sick in a much shorter time span than "normal" flu.
Further, it's not being mitigated by equatorial seasonal differences spreading that time span out.
you're misunderstanding the term "beta".
Worse, covid19 patients that become seriously ill will be in hospital for two to four weeks as they battle virul pneumonia and other respiratory complications.
The result is people getting sick, relatively all at once and then jamming up medical facilities as people get sick faster than get well.
In the US, the virus is doubling every 2 to 3 days. Patients with "mild" symptoms of just fever and aches are reporting 2 weeks to recover. Again, hospitalized patients can take a month to recover.
Here's another problem of the immediacy of covid19 illnesses, OTHER patients, some with life threatening situations are already being turned away or having their procedure postponed because of the double whammy of medical facilities being filled up AND the extra risk of any patient in a hospital being exposed to the virus.
(If you're going to hospital for another life threatening condition, you run the risk of contracting this new virus which will have a greater impact on someone already sick.)
So, you aren't high risk for the deadly complications and don't mind 2 weeks of fever and aches. That's good. But, if you continue to act as though it's nothing, you will be a transmission point, eventually, for someone who will die from covid19 and its respiratory complications.
Also, "beta" doesn't mean what you think it means, based on your usage of the word as an intended insult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, part of the corrupt UK judge, Justice Nicol, reasoning for believing Heard's verbal testimony over Depp's AND the actual evidence provided by Depp was that Heard must be a good, honest person since she DONATED the $7 million to charity.
No donation, here, equals not a good, honest person. Incidentally, corrupt Justice Nicol retired shortly after the case, for he accepted a pleasant back channel "donation". Maybe HE was the actual charity he referred to in his statement.
Second, Heard said she was donating it because she didn't want anything from her abuser. She kept the money, ergo, no abuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dfloper actually Russia's "booming" economy is entirely due to the Russian government spending money it doesn't have on war related expenses. All that expenditure, which Russia has no way to afford and can't sustain, is figured into the GDP or economic output figures.
It's because of this that it's been said that Putin actually can't afford to win the war, which would cause that "booming" economy to instantly crash as war related spending (which is propping up the economy) would cease.
As for the private sector, in order to have access to foreign currency to prop up the value of the Ruble during 2022 and 2023 by buying up Rubles with foreign currency reserves, Russia implemented policies that have hurt non government and non war related industries by such things as forcing profit repatriation. In other words, if a Russian business earned profit outside of Russia, they must buy Rubles from the government with that foreign currency profit.
If you look into real economic news that reports more than the basic GDP, you'll learn this sort of detail about WHY the Russian economy, based GDP is "booming".
You could also look at the current value of the Ruble, which Putin instructed his central bank to maintain at least a 100 Ruble to 1 USD ratio prior to his "reelection", and how the Ruble fallen below that threshold (currently 105 Ruble are required to buy 1 USD or the Ruble is worth $0.0095 instead of $0.0100 as required by Putin) as Russian foreign currency reserves dwindle and it's petroleum exports are further hampered by tougher sanctions further reducing the access to any foreign currency to prop up the Ruble (as well as generally, the government having less revenue whilst spending more on boosting that "booming" GDP).
Cheers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:22 first, she doesn't understand WHEN a man's prime years are. Once she hits 35 to 40, when men are entering their prime, she'll know very well because none of the now-successful 40 year old men will have anything to do with her.
Second, in WOMEN'S prime years, late teens to early twenties, most guys ARE getting their act together, either by going to college for a degree or starting off in blue collar jobs that they have proficiency in and opportunity to obtain.
Contrary to the guys she was allowing to run her through, myself and most of my friends were looking for a girl to date who had relationship potential.
Guys who do hookup with a girl in her prime and want to date will hear things like "this isn't working, it seems like you want something more" (more than just being fwb or a hookup when she didn't find anything "better" that weekend) or "I just want to be young and have fun and stuff."
She's the type of girl who will say, of a nice guy, "a guy isn't very nice if he just wants to sleep with me".
Then, after ignoring the guy who wanted to sleep with her AND get to know her, she jumps into bed with a guy who actually JUST wants to sleep with her and she will say, "he's so nice" before he ghosts her.
Then circle back to the first girl's reminder that women choose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nobodyfromnowhere3597 - Russia, being on the offensive is without a doubt taking heavier casualties than Ukraine.
The issue becomes one of relative numbers. If Ukraine is causing 4 times more casualties to Russia than Russia is causing to Ukraine, that might be good, neutral, or bad for Ukraine. It depends on how deep the actual pool if draftees runs in Russia, if combat experienced Ukrainians can be rotated out to both decompress and train newer Ukrainian troops, and how much impact newer weapons are when they arrive.
I mention this last point because the Bradley's, tanks, and longer range rockets won't be in the field in time to help Bakhmut, but the Bakhmut fight is keeping Russian troops tied up, buying time for those systems to come online in other areas or even in a future Bakhmut counter offensive, which will happen at some point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evilleader1991 - You've been watching a different war. First, in the initial Russian onslaught, Ukraine had to defend as best they could with the unprepared defense they had. Otherwise, they would've been overrun.
Later, after the initial onslaught was thwarted and Russia was forced withdraw troops to sustainable logistics lines, Ukraine had two major breakthroughs which liberated a significant amounts of territory in Kharkiv and Kherson regions that Russia had captured in the initial part of invasion.
Once that was accomplished and winter set in, Ukraine has fought from the defense until they are no longer able to do so at beneficial attrition rate and then they fall back and repeat. That was the case around Bakhmut as well as Avdiivka.
You can't look at the war merely from the tactical point or you won't understand it. There are interconnected pieces. Bakhmut probably should have been left sooner than it was from a TACTICAL or local perspective. However, the reason Ukraine was fighting in Bakhmut wasn't so much to hold that city. Ukraine was fighting in Bakhmut first to attrit the Russians who were using their advanced tactics of sending waves of men out to camber over the previous wave of men that were eliminated by the Ukrainian troops fighting from defensive positions and using artillery, drones, automatic weapons fire to eliminate Russians out in the open.
Second, Ukraine was fighting in Bakhmut "stubbornly and to the bitter end", as you put it, to keep the Russian troops and logistics centered on the Bakhmut region INSTEAD of the Zaporizhia region where Ukraine intended to begin their offensive when they had enough equipment and troops returned from training in the EU to do so. In hindsight, the Russians mined that area more heavily than any other place on the planet and Western military advisors had no clue how to clear minefields that are protected by artillery without air superiority.
Getting back to your "bitter end" point, this isn't so much the result if Ukraine's strategy being faulty as it is an issue of frightened Western leaders taking an appeasement mindset and trickling enough equipment to Ukraine for them to avoid being overrun en masse by Russia across the entire front but not enough and not enough of the right equipment soon enough for Ukraine to fight they would want to. The entire war has been a study in Ukraine doing more with less.
Realize that the "world's 2nd strongest military" has been stymied by a poorer, smaller neighbor that was completely unprepared for the full scale, 3 prong Russian invasion of February 2022.
Ukraine held Avdiivka for the same reason as Bakhmut. Russia was throwing away 1,000 soldiers and tens of pieces of armor per day and allowing Ukraine to eliminate those numbers from a beneficial attrition standpoint by Ukraine fighting from the defense. Ukraine's supporters failed to keep their promises of "supporting Ukraine as long as it takes" and as artillery and mortar ammunition dried up, Ukraine again was faced with the situation of being unable to eliminate the waves of Russians clambering over the dead, previous wave and had to withdraw.
Ukraine fought in Avdiivka too long in your opinion. Did ask yourself, "Why?" No. You didn't, so I'll tell you. Ukraine was fighting in Avdiivka for the other reason as Bakhmut, to keep the Russians centered there and buy time for proper defenses to be constructed farther back. Yes, it's absolutely a failing that more Ukranian troops had to sacrifice in Avdiivka than necessary because the previous military leadership hadn't thought to construct proper defensive lines and fortifications while they were watching the Russians do exactly that under General Suroviken.
This is one of the huge failings that most media fail to talk about and especially fail to attribute to the much lauded General Zaluzhny. However much the men liked Zaluzhny, he forgot to build a proper defensive line and that led to Ukraine having to hold Avdiivka longer than they would have liked (til the bitter end, in your words), especially in the face of unfulfilled promises by Western nations on artillery and other ammo.
It's a bit like you planned to buy lunch every day and your parents promised to give you money for lunch every day, and by Wednesday, they stopped giving you lunch money. You trusted your parents. Shame on you. Right?
So, with defenses being built and Ukraine out of ammo, they withdrew from Avdiivka. In your opinion this was foolish stubbornness. However, you probably don't have someone who's already moved into your living room trying to break into your bedroom. If you did, you'd probably fight "stubbornly and foolishly" to keep them out.
By your logic, Ukraine should retreat from any fight with the Russians. That wouldn't be a very good defense at all and Ukraine would quickly be overrun. I don't know whether you failed to see and understand the strategic situation that I explained above or you are confused pro Russian Westerner and just want to disparage Ukraine in their fight for survival against a stronger, much more foolish and much more stubborn opponent.
I hope it's the former and you now understand WHY Ukraine fought in Bakhmut and Avdiivka as long as they did and also that Ukraine has liberated much of what Russia took in 2022. If it's latter, please realize that Russia considers the West and you, an enemy and part of a zero sum game where something can't be good for Russia unless it's bad for the West, where you live.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesegsmith - You're right and I agree it's wrong.
However, the thing is, and it looks like youtube deleted my other comment, is that Ukrainian men ARE going to fight one way or another. They will either CHOOSE to fight for Ukraine to protect their freedom or they will be FORCED to fight for Russia (against Estonia and other European countries) if they don't choose to defend themselves and allow Russia to prevail.
This is just the way it is. We've already seen it happen where Russia forced the men in Russian occupied Luhansk and Donetsk into military service for Russia. In fact, Putin probably found it hilarious that those ill equipped Ukrainians were being slaughtered by the better equipped and trained Ukranian military. Either way, it was a win for Putin as Ukranians were dying and moving towards Putin's goal of ending Ukraine.
Speaking of Putin, THIS is where the wrong comes from. Putin's invasion has put Ukranians into a position where they must either choose to fight for freedom or be forced to fight, as you put it, basically as slaves. It's 100% wrong for Russia to have invaded Ukraine, unprovoked, and put the Ukrainian people in this position. Which is why the free world needs to give Ukraine everything it needs so that the Ukranians who do choose to fight for their freedom can be successful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You need to realize that because of the electoral college, not voting for Trump or Biden, if you live in a purple "battleground" state (a state that isn't solidly either Blue or Red), you ARE voting for Trump if you don't vote for Biden. Because ALL that state's electors will vote for ONE candidate.
Arguably, because Trump is such a horrible person and even 40% of REPUBLICANS didn't vote for him in the recent primaries, it could be said that not voting for either Biden or Trump in ANY state is a vote for Trump. Anything that makes it easier for Trump to win a state's electoral college votes works for Trump.
Remember, YOUR individual vote isn't for president. YOUR vote in the general presidential election is for choosing who the state's electoral college will vote for. In most states, it's winner take all. If 50.01% of individual voters, like YOU, vote Trump, Trump wins ALL of the electoral votes of your state. Then, the electoral college actually votes for who becomes president.
This is why 3rd party candidates are horrible for our 2 party system (no 3rd party candidate will ever get any electoral college votes) and why not voting when you don't like either candidate is essentially a vote for the person you like the least.
Your state electors are going to vote for the same candidate and if it's the one you like the least, by not voting against that person, you are helping give ALL your state's votes to that candidate.
Trump is so horrible and did so poorly in the republican primary that some formerly Red states might actually be battleground states this time around.
Of course, Biden being a 1,000 year old white male might hurt the turnout of younger or first time voters, women, or SJW types. Although, since Trump is very bad for those groups, it's probably more important than ever that they actually go vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We ALREADY tried Trump's exact peace plan. For 7 months Trump blocked US aid to Ukraine. Trump's advisors are either idiots or they have him the advice he wavted to hear.
Not only did the war not "end tomorrow" 8 months ago when Trump ordered his lap dog, House Speaker Mike Johnson, to not allow the democratic process to proceed by blocking A VOTE on aid, but cutting US resulted in unnecessary Ukrainian deaths on the battlefield and the loss of Avdiivka (as Ukraine ran low on artillery ammunition to keep hack the zombie waves of Russian attacks).
As another example, we also Tried the same "freeze the front lines" cease fire after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia broke that agreement after, surprise, using the time to regroup and resupply its "asymmetric fighters".
Finally, there was the Budapest Memorandum in which the US, UK, and Russia gave assurances and guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Obviously, Russia broke that by first landing para troopers in Crimea and transporting criminals and anarchists to eastern Ukraine and calling them "separatists" (Russia used the same technique of transporting migrants to the EU border, giving them bicycles and telling them to ask for asylum in the EU). And, of course Russia broke the agreement again when they rolled columns of armored vehicles into Ukraine in 2022.
We've tried all the key parts of Trump's "peace" plan and all parts of the plan failed to keep or create peace. Worse, these measures actually encouraged Russia to proceed with the full scale invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monkeykiss1988 - You're post is obviously designed to spread misinformation. So, I'll respond to clarify for others who might read it.
EVERY Oblast in Ukraine, in Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea voted for independence from Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Ukraine wasn't being considered for NATO membership. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Georgia and Ukraine were not not considered for NATO membership and merely left with the promise of "maybe someday" as an appeasement to Russia. Those are the 2 countries Russia has invaded in Putin's efforts to rebuild the Russian Empire. This fact, Putin's unprovoked aggression leads to the next point.
NATO didn't expand east. Former Soviet states fled west, voluntarily, to the protection of NATO for the exact reasons we saw in Georgia and Ukraine, Putin's unprovoked land grabs of sovereign but weaker and non nuclear neighbors.
Also, culturally and linguistically, less than half of Ukraine is Russian by both population or area. Even Kherson and Zaporizhia, claimed by but not occupied by Russia, are predominantly Ukrainian in language and culture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jan_Strzelecki - your free to have your opinion. However, 2+2 =4, regardless of whether you agree. Most of the media "filmed on the moon" is much too well framed, focused, and lit to have been done on the moon, with the available equipment.
Even the guy who designed the suit cameras has said it's inconceivable that so many pictures were so well framed with the equipment he designed.
Of course NASA would care if the media was of a usable quality, clear, well framed, well lit, and in focus. Even in funding hayday, they aren't going to spend all that money and then have low quality, poorly framed pictures to show off our achievement.
Using your logic, all Instagram models actually look like their pics. I mea, why would am IG model doctor their pics???
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, we don't have the technology to affect climate significantly and certainly can't prevent climate change.
The issue is that you think 71 years is a long time. Earth doesn't agree with you. When you get into the billions, then you can talk about, "in my X years."
Fun fact: the Earth is currently in still in an ice age. And had been warming out of it since long before humans began emitting carbon into the atmosphere.
Models predict that in about 50,000 years (so, a good bit more than your 71 years), the climate will enter another cooling phase. If humans are still around and still haven't figured out terraforming technology required to maintain a stable climate, global COOLING will be the problem de jour.
70 years is a decently long life for a human. Yet, it still prevents you from having any perspective on how long the planet has been around and what the climate was like before HUMANS existed, let alone before you existed.
The ACTUAL drivers of climate change are things like: Earth's distance from the sun along its elliptical orbit, tilt of Earth's axis, solar activity, the distance of the moon to Earth (the moon is slowly leaving), tectonic activity, volcanic activity, and extra planetary events (aka meteor impact).
We can't control, significantly affect, or often even predict any of these actual drivers of climate change.
The Earth's climate has been much different. Even at 70+ years, you simply haven't been around long enough to have perspective.
If you don't believe what I'm saying, tell me where the ice sheet covering North America and Europe went. That was receding long before humans started burning fossil fuels.
The planet really doesn't care what we do. If you were around long enough, you'd laugh at our current rendition of the globe because the continents would be in the wrong places. We can't control that.
As the continents move, the ocean changes shape. As the ocean chanted shape, the currents that move warm and cold water around change. The same happens with air currents as these systems interact with the affects from the things I listed above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While you're correct about Putin's #DictatorProblems and Perun has done a deep dive on the issue, the problem Russia is having stopping the Ukrainian SMO is way more than splitting power due to lack of trust.
Russia simply doesn't have the personnel or equipment to occupy Ukraine, defend Russia's borders and counter the Ukrainian SMO. Putin, a "Master Strategist sabotaged by incompetents surrounding him", doesn't want to pull coherent units out of Ukraine to meet the SMO challenge in Russia.
In this you're also correct that the problem is of his making but in a different way. He's a spoiled child that's ALWAYS gotten what he wanted. Here, it's not just a matter of people telling him what he wants to hear (Gerasimov's infamous "I stopped the invasion" report). At this point, 20 years into his dictatorship, Putin genuinely believes that if people just do what he tells them, he will get the results he wants. Whether that's reality or not, he can't process. "You, walk through that wall!"
He's telling the various military arms to pull random units together and throw them at the Ukrainian SMO because that's all that's available. There's no military reserve capacity in Russia.
Where you're correct is that Putin can't just let Rosguardia or the FSB commit all their resources. However, it's also not the trust issue you think. Putin doesn't trust the military (no dictator can), the oligarchs, or the people. Rosguardia and the FSB exist to protect the regime and Putin from coup. Committing either force to fully meet the SMO leaves Putin open to another Wagner-esque attempt by the military or other PMCs that the oligarchs might back.
Putin can't commit the FSB or Rosguardia because he needs them to protect his regime. He can't commit the military because he doesn't want to pull coherent units out of Ukraine. While Putin is struggling to come to terms with not getting his way simply because he wishes or orders it, Ukraine keeps liberating Russian territory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nonyabisness6306 - You're right that countries loaning assistance are deciding what to send and when.
That's exactly my point. Had countries, especially the US done more, sooner it would've saved Ukranian lives and given Russia a bigger reason to open their eyes and realize they are not going to win in Ukraine. This was especially critical before Russia passed all the off ramps to de-escalation by holding farce ballots in Ukraine and declaring parts of Ukraine "Russia".
You're just being ridiculous. There are Bradley's, which the Ukrainians desperately could've used early to help protect against artillery while moving troops as well as for countering Russian vehicles, sitting in warehouses and vehicle parks doing absolutely nothing and being used by no one (the same is true of Abrams tanks, although those are less valuable in Ukraine). Many of these unused vehicles are staged in Europe, could've been in Ukraine within a week, and then been backfilled in their European storage by vehicles stored, unused in the US.
HIMARS systems are another. We have plenty of launchers and ammo. We took our time, helping drag out the conflict and encouraging Russia that they could manage to overcome what we were sending.
Air defense systems are another category of critical equipment that the US and other NATO countries could've spammed into Ukraine. The Germans weren't even using the Gepard systems they sent. The US Avenger short range system is cheap, plentiful, and easily replaced while being a cost effective and highly mobile counter to drones and helicopters.
There are weapon systems, like ATACMS that we don't have a large stockpile of, there's a reason for that. We aren't using them.
You have to realize that nobody is going to invade mainland USA. We don't need a ready stockpile of ATACMS missiles to defend the US of A.
In fact, no major country is going to attack US, NATO, or EU interests anywhere in the world because one of only TWO such world community enemies was fully engaged in Ukraine. That only left China and it's threat to Taiwan as the only conflict the US would have any interest in contributing resources to.
You could bring up HAMAS and Israel war. Again, not a US military concern. You could bring up the battle in the former Soviet Republic, also not a US concern. You could bring up the limited US air strikes in Syria against Iran. That's an ongoing area of operations and we still don't have any interest in putting a large presence there.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is fighting an enemy of the US, NATO, and the EU and the cost to them is in blood, as opposed to the mere unit readiness and ammo reserve that you argue. Ukraine is fighting to stop a Russian invasion of Europe before Russia has a chance and encouragement to be stupid enough to do such.
The reason we're at the 2022 invasion of Ukraine is because the US and UK did nothing in 2014. We were responsible for protecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their Soviet era nuclear deterrent via the Budapest Memorandum. We did nothing and Russia interpreted that as weakness and a green light yo continue planning the greater invasion of Ukraine AND other European and NATO countries that it sees as being part of its sphere of influence.
Putin, delusional, narcissistic, megalomaniac that he is genuinely thought he could leave a rebuilt Russian Empire as his legacy. Ukraine is fighting to stop that. Western nations absolutely owe Ukraine everything they need for that fight even if it draws down our stockpiles or decreases readiness of some of our own units because UKRAINE IS KEEPING ALL OF OUR TROOPS SAFE AND OUT OF THE FIGHT by doing the fighting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My rescued stray Border Collie Husky mix was well behaved like this on her initial grooming when I first found her. She was even calm during the blow dry.
Fast forward 6 months where she's completely come into herself, fed, exercised, and confident. She was crying in the bathtub trying to climb out (I was in the front chit chatting with the manager). Then, a vocalization I've never heard, like "Waaa, Waaa, ww
Waaa!" started happening.
Since there were other dogs there (they also do doggy daycare and boarding), I asked if that was my dog. The manager came back and said it was my dog not liking the dryer. Then the groomer came out and asked if I'd be willing to help try and calm or hold my dog during the blow dry. I wanted to have her coat blown out because of undercoat shedding. So, I was thankful they allowed me to help instead of just putting her in the drying crate.
Anyway, point is my dog went from well behaved when she was first rescued to acting a fool (every bit of what the groomer on this channel expects from Huskies!) during her 2nd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, the F35 may be able to precisely drop ordnance, in the close support role, but being 35,000 ft up, the F-35 will not demoralize the enemy.
The F35 also isn't able to locate targets and distinguish friendlies via Mark I Eyeball. There's interviews with A10 pilots where the talk about being called in on a target and then realizing that there were other troops engaging the target from the far side that the jtac who called in the strike might not have been aware of.
F35 would just have a bomb enroute, regardless.
F35 also can't be used to escort helicopters. They won't be allowed to fly low, they can't fly as slow, and they don't have the loiter time.
New build F-16s and more AH-64s would have been a much more budge conscious and effective choice for the Army and Air Force.
The F35 still doesn't solve the payload and penetration problems of the F-18, for the Navy.
Ironically, from a tactical perspective, the F-14 was the more capable ground attack or strike aircraft once they had been refit for the role. The F-14 could carry more ordnance, farther, and faster than either the F/A-18 or F-35.
Too bad its maintenance schedule couldn't be fixed with an updated design.
The F35 may be a better aircraft than the A/V-8, on paper and in ship handling, but as previously mentioned, the F35 won't allow pilots to bring the advantage of Mark I Eyeballs to the battlefield.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:01 These Russian Freedom fighters (uh, translated as Russian Mujahideen, ironically) are doing exactly what the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
The sought sanctuary in Pakistan, where the US and allies couldn't attack them. Then, they'd launch raids into Afghanistan. Then, retreat back into Pakistan.
Rinse and repeat.
Russia may actually have a permanent problem now that this tactic has been established. Russia currently doesn't have the military power to seal off the northern Russian border, let alone take the fight into Ukraine again on that vector.
Even after Russia has been evicted from all parts of Ukraine, these attacks by Russians operating with Ukrainian sanction and sanctuary could continue indefinitely.
If Russia doesn't sign a peace deal ending the war and opts for the north, south Korea cease fire situation in an effort to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (can't join while at war), then Ukraine would have zero reason to prevent these groups from poking Russia.
If Russia does sign a peace to end the war, Russia would still be in no position to again attack into Ukraine to stop such attacks because Putin has decimated Russia's military, voided his unspoken contract with the people, and soured the Russian population's taste for war.
Even if Russia chases these freedom fighters out, this could be an ongoing problem for Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moiseshuerta3984 - I agree that solving homeless (and hunger, especially among children) are important social issues.
However, and unfortunately homeless is a complex issue.
"Aid to Ukraine" is a simple issue. Send old equipment from current inventory, order new equipment, done.
Also, realize that when you say "homelessness" you're actually using the umbrella term that describes many other issues that are each complex themselves.
When you say "fix homelessness", what you mean is:
Fix drug and alcohol abuse and addiction.
Fix mental illness.
Fix personal budgeting and money management.
Fix employers willingness to hire people with criminal record.
Fix ability of people to get and maintain employment.
Fix healthcare.
Fix discrimination against handicaps.
And so on for all the multitude of things that can lead to and propagate homelessness.
None of those issues are simple and pretending that just "homelessness" has a solution is doing a disservice to an important issue you care about.
Now, let's say 60 billion is made available to "fix homelessness". Besides the issues affecting homelessness being complex, how to spend the money is complex.
If you spread that out over every state, all you'll do is end up adding homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Many homeless avoid shelters because they run into abuse by either shelter staff or other people that are crammed together with little to no security.
That "solution" is barely a bandaid.
Besides, if you are concerned about homeless in general, not just the US, there's a lot of homeless people in Ukraine because Russia is DESTROYING their apartments, houses, schools, and hospitals. Sending Ukraine the tools to defend themselves and eventually evict Russian forces is helping to solve homelessness in that regard.
1
-
1
-
@tonyjetton8352 - Why do you think less help to Ukraine will save lives? You must be supporting Russia. Those are the only lives saved by withholding aid to Ukraine.
If you're actually interested in saving Ukrainian lives, then you want as much military aid to Ukraine as they need to evict Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine.
Remember, if you are a Russian supporter and want to save Russian lives, then you want Russia to cease its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and withdraw all forces back to the internationally recognized borders of Russia. THAT saves the most lives.
Ukranians aren't going to stop fighting just because the US stops sending aid.
. If someone breaks into your house and declares your living room and kitchen now belong to them, are you going to just agree if the police tell you they aren't going to do anything or are you going to fight to remove the intruder?
Leas military aid to Ukraine means MORE LOST LIVES. For the troops, less equipment means more likelyhood that they lose their life to Russian soldiers.
Less military aid to Ukraine merely prolongs the war and INCREASES lives lost, especially among civilians who will be hit by Russian missiles and drones in their apartments, schools, and hospitals which Russia targets intentionally hoping to break the will of the people (in fact, these attacks on civilians just make Ukrainians more angry and more likely to continue fighting) and Russian artillery continues to shell Ukrainian civilian areas that Russia is trying to attack.
Less military aid to Ukraine increases the duration of the war and increases civilian casualties.
So, yes. At what cost in lives are you willing to withhold aid to Ukraine?!
1
-
@tonyjetton8352
Why do you think less help to Ukraine will save lives? You must be supporting Russia. Those are the only lives saved by withholding aid to Ukraine.
If you're actually interested in saving Ukrainian lives, then you want as much military aid to Ukraine as they need to evict Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine.
Remember, if you are a Russian supporter and want to save Russian lives, then you want Russia to cease its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and withdraw all forces back to the internationally recognized borders of Russia. THAT saves the most lives.
Ukranians aren't going to stop fighting just because the US stops sending aid.
. If someone breaks into your house and declares your living room and kitchen now belong to them, are you going to just agree if the police tell you they aren't going to do anything or are you going to fight to remove the intruder?
Leas military aid to Ukraine means MORE LOST LIVES. For the troops, less equipment means more likelyhood that they lose their life to Russian soldiers.
Less military aid to Ukraine merely prolongs the war and INCREASES lives lost, especially among civilians who will be hit by Russian missiles and drones in their apartments, schools, and hospitals which Russia targets intentionally hoping to break the will of the people (in fact, these attacks on civilians just make Ukrainians more angry and more likely to continue fighting) and Russian artillery continues to shell Ukrainian civilian areas that Russia is trying to attack.
Less military aid to Ukraine increases the duration of the war and increases civilian casualties.
So, yes. At what cost in lives are you willing to withhold aid to Ukraine?!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One thing that the A-10 can do that no other available solution can is offer CAS with Mark I Eyeball target verification (which you incorrectly presented as a negative).
I don't have a link, but I've seen several vids of pilots talking about the ability for the A-10 pilot to get the bigger picture around a target. One was explaining that he had a frantic call for air support from troops engaged with the enemy. On the other side was another friendly unit that the first unit couldn't see and, in the hectic moment, wasn't aware of.
If the CAS was at altitude and just dropping a bomb it could've gone very bad for the nearby friendlies.
Desert Storm is a bit of an odd benchmark to choose. Desert Storm was a 43 days "war".
The A-10 has been a valuable asset in Afghanistan for 20 years in a completely different role which you spent a disproportionately tiny amount of time on.
I'm really surprised you spent so much time on Desert Storm info.
But, since you did spend so much time on Desert Storm, it would've been prudent to talk about the risks of attacking from high altitude that would be present with a competent, modern equipped enemy (which Iraq, at that time, wasn't).
Our forces in Desert Storm had complete air control and Iraq's longer range AA missile system were dated, few, and prioritized early on.
The F-117 and F-111 (if they were still in service) and the F-35 can't do the job the A-10 can do.
If the US gets into a shooting war with Russia or China, we (the world) have much bigger problems than a debate on whether CAS is better from high altitude or low.
Your discussion comes from the perspective of a bean counter not from the perspective of a guy on the ground risking his life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:43 try backing one into a dock... Better yet, try driving down the car sized roads to get to the dock. Dipshit acts all smart or curious but doesn't bother spending 5 seconds brain storming answers to his "why".
Oh, and that's before we get to safety issues like "more weight takes longer to stop and cars that turn out in front of or cut over in front of trucks don't fkn care how much space the truck needs to stop".
Anyone who wants to compare commercial truck traffic with commercial sea, air, or rail traffic needs to realize that those other modes of transportation aren't dealing with instances of other boats, planes, or vehicles on the tracks trying to commit suicide on the large vehicle 1000 times EVERY 8 HOURS (source: I counted the number of times a passenger car cut in front of the truck I was driving at less than 2 seconds in front of me).
Now, after discussing those types of issues, let's move on to where would larger vehicles park? Oversized loads, longer or wider, already don't fit in truck stops and rest areas. Making every truck longer would require a fundamental shift in the private enterprise of truck services. Are you wanting to pay for that in some sort of public private partnership resulting in both a tax increase and increased cost of fuel or other services?
You sir, aren't "smart" or curious. You're a smarty-pants that isn't nearly as smart as you thought you were because you didn't bother to brainstorm the answers to your own question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cameronspence4977 you have to blame Afghanistan on Dubya. There was never going to be a way to withdraw with the Taliban just hanging out in the mountains waiting. Troops never should've been on the ground and didn't need to be on the ground.
Al Qaeda as a threat could've been entirely eliminated from the air. The Taliban ran for the hills as the aerial attacks started. If they Afghanis had any interest in self governance (which hindsight proves they didn't), they would've had that opportunity to take the country for themselves.
If after 20 years, an entire generation of young adults who were raised under democracy, the people had no desire or will to fight the Taliban (despite being trained and well equipped to do so for 2 decades), there's nothing ANY US president could do except occupy the country permanently.
For contrast, look at Ukraine. Without 20 years of training and with a tiny fraction of the $2.7 TRILLION dollars we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, they held the "2nd strongest military in the world" off after the initial push and even pushed back in several areas, completely chased Russia out of the Black Sea, and have nullified Russian air power advantage (and ground based air defenses proliferation) to the point that Ukraine is actually conducting air operations in support of the Kursk SMO.
Ukraine got to THAT level in just 2 years (and throw down their weapons and take off their uniforms) at a significantly lower $ cost than what was wasted on Afghanistan. Even if you're against Ukraine or spending money in the US building new equipment for us while we give them surplus and hand me downs, you can't argue that Ukraine is a worse value than Afghanistan.
Again, Afghanistan is a Dubya failure. He had no exit strategy when he put Americans on that foreign soil. That's another value of Ukraine. WE aren't having to do the fighting, merely supply a friendly, already democratic country.
1
-
1
-
@vanettevanhuyssteen5548 to answer your question, I suppose it's because we have 2 oceans and a mighty military and nuclear deterrent protecting us. We feel safe. Unfortunately, perception doesn't equal actual safety.
And, we're really too busy trying to make our car or SUV and credit card payments and fueling the wealth gap by helping executives and shareholders take an ever increasing share of the wealth to worry about what's going on "over there".
Interestingly, this isn't just an American issue. In late 2013, during the Maidan protests in Ukraine, I was talking to a Ukranian friend who lived near Donetsk. When I asked her about the subject, she flippantly changed the subject stating that the protests were far away and had nothing to do with her.
Within the year, she and her daughter had fled to a city outside of the Donbas area, her grandmother was eliminated by Russian proxy artillery fire as they approached her town (she refused to leave her home), and Russian special forces had secured the government buildings in the "polite" takeover of Crimea.
THAT is the lesson that other Ukranians, other Europeans, and Americans need to understand. "That's far away and not my concern," can get real close and real personal unexpectedly quick. It's the same thing that happened in the outset WWII.
Anyway, yes... Frustrating that so many people want to believe if we ignore it, the Russians will begin behaving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We still have lots of Americans saying, "see, lock downs and social distancing aren't reducing the spread."
The really fun part of this is that it IS helping slow the transmission. 2 million deaths possible if people keep walking around like there's nothing to be concerned about... Or, 200k dead if we actually do things right.
It could actually be much worse than that. Without proper ppe and enough ppe to change for each patient, medical workers will end up catching and spreading it and they'll get knocked out in bigger numbers than other counties. A triple whammy.
Worse still is if medical personnel answer Cuomo's call to come help. Then take covid19 back to their communities. Stupid, stupid response.
We got started Waaaay too late, in large part because president T-Diddy, being a certified medical doctor and scientific data analyst, said covid19 was very, very under control because we only had 9 cases.
Wait, those 9 cases were out spreading covid19, unknowingly, for 14 days before actually getting sick with symptoms? That's kind of a pertinent thing to consider.
Well, let's test people they've been in contact with and isolate.
There's no tests available?
Uhhh, well, if there's no tests available, we can't have any more confirmed cases. So, it's all very, very under control.
/facepalm
Mr. President, here's some crayons and an Applebee's placemat. Keep yourself occupied and let the adults talk, please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ataxpayer723 - that's the thing, though. Russia does use its rail system and is heavily dependent on it.
I think it's actually more of an issue of "where can we get X that we can spare it from?"
As in, Russia threw in everything that it was able to at the outset. And, that was barely enough food and fuel for a few days, as far as supplies go.
Now, if they want to get tanks or artillery or whatever to the front, they have to figure out where to take it from that won't leave them short on home defense.
As much as is made about Russia having a large army and much larger than Ukraine it's a relatively small army for the sheer amount of geography it needs to be able to defend.
Russia is about 175% larger than the United States. The United States' military is about 175% larger than Russia's (and more technologically advanced).
So, the US decides to send X to Ukraine. X is sourced, loaded on a truck, railcar, plane, ship, or whatever combination and it arrives.
Russia decides it needs X. It has to FIND X and see if that X even actually works, then maybe find another X, then decide how many they can spare from that location. Then find a few more in another location, then send them to some aggregating area. THEN, they can start to try to get them to the front and hope the rail line, bridge, or final convoy isn't attacked by the assets that already arrived from 5,000 miles away and across an ocean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Noodleanrgry Ukraine can't join NATO "now", so "joining now is bad" is a moot point or non issue.
The discussion is about Ukraine joining NATO when it qualifies. That means after the war is over and Russia has been expelled from Ukranian territory.
At that point, it's a very good thing for Ukraine to join NATO because if not, Russia will invade again, even if under a different narcissistic, megalomaniac, sociopath dictator.
"Assurances" (Budapest Memorandum) that someone would help didn't prevent or even lead to aid for Ukraine when Russia finally did come knocking.
Plus, voicing support now for Ukraine joining NATO is good, with no downside, because it's the NATO alliance telling Russia that Russia cannot invade nations that are internationally recognized even if they are in what Russia perceives as the "Russian sphere of influence" (which includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and ironically since they are against it, Germany).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unrelated to this episode, but forgot to comment on previous regarding confiscation of Russian funds in US and EU banks.
A recent Politico article outlines a story of other dictators trying to urge the EU to not confiscate Russian funds. Only bad actors want Russia and its assets protected.
Confiscation of Russian funds would IMPROVE confidence in the banking system not reduce confidence, as you posit.
Confiscating Russian funds sends the message that the US believes in peace, stability, rule of law, and that you can't have your cake and eat it to. Once a nation or dictator throws out Rule of Law and invades another country without provocation, then THEY HAVE THROWN OUT RULE OF LAW ENTIRELY.
Such country has given up the right to hide behind the laws of other countries while violating international laws and norms to conduct warfare. Countries where such a country or dictator had stashed money for safekeeping owe the respect to the world and the parties aggrieved by the hostile nation NOT the hostile nation.
Confiscation of Russian funds tells everyone who ISN'T planning nefarious activities that their money is safe AND that if they are victimized by a nefarious actor, the victim will have recourse in the civilized nations holding the bad actor's assets.
Yes, your money is safe in the USA, as long as you aren't going to start unnecessary wars.
To be fair, countries around the world would've been right to seize US assets to help pay for rebuilding Iraq since we went to war their, unprovoked, in search of non existent WMD that US intelligence knew didn't exist (but provided raw, unvetted intel to president Dubya because he wanted something showing Iraq had WMD - dictator syndrome, show me what I want to see!).
However, Iraq didn't ask anyone to seize our assets because we went ahead and spent 20 years and over a trillion dollars trying to rebuild and secure their country after invading, dismantling the government, failing to replace it with anything, and causing a civil war. They were already getting our money. It would be like if Russia lost tomorrow, withdrew military forces from Ukraine, and sent in civil engineers and reconstruction money. Ukraine wouldn't be asking for confiscation of Russian assets at that point either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakelong6860 - unfortunately, in a modern, civilized society, police don't bring or keep order.
Order is kept because most people are willing to accept and abide the norms of the society. Ie, you don't need police, or a law even to say "don't kill, don't steal, etc". Most people know that's wrong and realize that even if they COULD get away with it, that would mean them agreeing it's OK for someone else to do the same to them.
It's this unspoken, unwritten societal contract that keeps order. Police are superfluous and only REACT to crimes, they don't prevent crimes.
Sadly, THIS was the biggest harm Al Qaeda did to the US on 9/11. Prior to 9/11, criminal justice experts and social researchers realized that crime prevention is superior to reacting to crime in actually...wait for it...preventing crime.
Police forces were open to and seeking ways to prevent crime. After 9/11, most police forces did a hard 180 degree turn and geared up to fight Al Qaeda, becoming quasi military forces.
As you point out, Al Qaeda didn't agree to our societal contract and police oriented themselves to bring order, by crushing the population if necessary.
Fortunately, Al Qaeda never showed up, except for a few home grown crazies who would have probably engaged in some other crime had Al Qaeda not appealed to them (again, some of the few, like the Uvalde shooter, who don't participate in the societal contract that keeps order).
Unfortunately, we're again saddled with police that have the mindset of: "tough on crime", "shoot unarmed citizen suspects as they try to flee", "if they aren't in blue, they're a criminal".
Our police are ready to bring order, but we already have order. They have nothing to do most of the time except look for or cause trouble for average citizens, with impunity and without responsibility to the citizens.
Then, when there IS an incident where order is violated, the brave police sometimes cower and wish for an unarmed, fleeing suspect that they can bravely shoot in the back.
Modern police are the equivalent of the British soldiers that occupied the American colonies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jake, could you do a piece on how a vote for RFK Jr is actually, functionally a vote FOR Trump. (RFK's campaign was made viable by republican donors).
Any vote for RFK Jr in the general election is actually a vote for Trump.
The reason is that with our 2 party system and not having a consensus government, any vote for the 3rd party candidate that takes votes away from the main party candidate of similar affiliation, is a vote for the candidate of the opposite affiliation by removing the vote from the viable 2 party candidate and putting it towards the 3rd party candidate that CANNOT WIN the election.
In this case, we have RFK Jr, who tried but failed to earn the Democratic Party presidential nomination, being supported by REPUBLICAN donors to sabotage the chances of the actual Democratic presidential nominee, Biden, getting more votes.
Make no mistake, as pointed out in the video, a vote for RFK Jr in the general election is actually, functionally a vote for Trump.
This is why 3rd party candidates are, counterintuitively, TERRIBLE for democracy in our 2 party system. They aren't actually adding choice in the general election.
People who vote for the 3rd party are actually really voting for the candidate that's farthest from their positions or beliefs by stealing votes from the main party candidate that is closer to their position on issues.
For a recent example, in the 2016 election cycle of Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump, 3rd party candidate Jill Stein helped Trump clinch key battleground states (states where the electorate was evenly split between democrat and republican voters) by pulling votes away from Clinton.
People who voted for Stein were probably definitely not supportive of Trump, but that's what their vote for Stein ensured.
Because of the electoral college system, your vote isn't for the president. Your voting for who ALL the electors of your state will vote for. The people don't elect the president, the electoral college does.
Voting for RFK Jr is a vote for Trump.
Choose wisely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
36:35 re, combined arms
Remember that in Ukraine "combined arms" means armor, infantry, and artillery. Air power is noticeably absent from the equation due to proliferation of ground based air defenses on both sides.
F-16 won't change that because it can't engage the Russian Su 34 and Mig 31 that are lobbing R37 air to air missiles at Ukrainian aircraft, from 150 km away, whenever Ukraine's jets are detected by ground radar or the AWACS flying over the Black Sea.
Gripen, Typhoon, or Rafale (with the Meteor missile, that the F-16 isn't equipped for) would be required to discourage the Russian long range attacks.
Even then, any significant air operations would require simultaneous strategic missile spam (Storm Shadow, ATACMS, GLSDB, decoys, etc) to saturate Russian radar and confuse threat priority assessment.
So, combined arms in Ukraine is armor infantry, and artillery working together.
1
-
1
-
The REAL problem isn't tipping. The REAL problem is wage stagnation and being stagnant for so long that the wealthy have convinced the workers that's normal. Person A should be properly rewarded at their job so they are willing and able to pay Person B a tip for personal service that is above and beyond the minimum requirement.
The discussion about tipping being bad never acknowledges this because the workforce is so used be under rewarded and the new gig economy has eroded any sense of loyalty from employee or employer that "regular raises" along with a businesses regular increase in profit no longer exists and that our initial mindset and reaction is to want something cheaper instead of wanting to be paid more.
Not having to tip for good service is cheaper and fits this wage stagnation is normal mind conditioning we've all received.
Instead of saying, "we should get rid of tipping", say "I should be earning enough for MY work that I can afford to reward someone who provides exemplary personal service!"
I have a friend who works in food service. He'd been a server or waiter for years. I asked him why, with all his experience serving, training, etc, why he didn't become a manager.
"I make more money than the manager with less responsibility."
The problem with tipping is that it's like commissioned sales. Some people try to do it who aren't cut out for it, aren't well rewarded (because their service quality was poor) and then complain about not earning enough on tips (or commission).
At a restaurant, there are absolutely different levels of service. The waiter doing the bare minimum, leaves your glasses empty without asking for a refill, takes forever fulfilling requests, doesn't verify if what the cook placed on the plate is correct, etc is the waiter working for the restaurant.
The waiter who never leaves my glass empty, who offers a complimentary something as a taster if I'm not sure what I want to eat or drink, who ensures what's on the plate is what I ordered before it arrives at my table, is prompt with fulfilling requests... THAT waiter is, effectively, working for ME. I appreciate his effort and respect his service above and beyond what the "minimum" would be and I'm willing to pay him for helping make my meal out an great experience.
That's where the people using tipped services also go wrong. At some point, we as a society, forgot we can do things ourselves, like cook food in our homes or go pick up our own items from a place.
In the case of delivery, like Door Dash, understand that person is NOT an employee of Door Dash. The delivery person is actually working for the person receiving the delivery with Door Dash as an intermediary, a broker, that sets up the order and handles billing of the customer and payment of the driver.
That fact aside, to equate it to the OG of delivery, pizza delivery, no tip service is when the driver didn't care if the toppings were slid all over as he cornered like he was at LeMans and the lid was smashed into the pie and he's late. He brought you the food that's the minimum the restraunt paid him to do. If he gets there quickly, the order is correct, he handled the pie gently and even brought the cheese and peppers you forgot to ask for, he's now gone above what was required and has earned a tip.
As far as door dash goes, there's a place to leave the tip in the order. Usually, I'm at the edge of the service range in whatever city or town I'm using the service. If there's 1 or less pizza shops willing to deliver, I know I'm out of typical range. So, I put a tip in the order, especially if I'd like the driver to walk it up to my hotel room instead of having to go down and pick up in the lobby. That's extra work for the driver and time he's not compensated for and again, outside of typical range and an extra walk in the hotel IS extra work.
If someone says they're going to tip in cash and the driver (remember, a door dash driver is NOT a door dash employee) does an excellent job and receives to cash tip as was stated in the order, then he's absolutely right to be pissed.
Sure, if there was simply one set fee, then this wouldn't happen. It would also price delivery out of reach of many people. As it is, you get pay for the service you want option. Cheap tip? Cheap service. I tip well and have only had 1 issue ever and that was a driver that was so eager to jump on my order that he doubled up but ended up taking forever on the delivery before mine. I pay more for better service (or service at all where there usually is none) and I'm able to do that because of the tip pay structure. Tipping extra is cheaper than me renting a car to go get my own food and bring it back to the hotel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The blame isn't just on greedy defense contractors, although a big part of every business is "how to maximize profit".
If a branch, army, corps, division, brigade, etc SAVES money on something, the get the next budget cut.
So, each level of operations has motivation to not save money. That way, it gives them flexibility to rearrange the budget at that level internally without having to have more money appropriated from higher up.
I don't really need $10,000 of X this year, but if I spend money I'm already authorized on X this year, then next year I can spend that $10,000 on Y without having to request money for Y.
It's both a lack of oversight on what really needs to be spent and a lack of flexibility or timeliness and responsiveness in the political budgeting process for the military.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Add in the White House Russian mole (Sergey Goryachev, aka Sergio Gor) and it's a genuine ship show. Gabbard is pro Russian, admits to getting her news from RT, and was following the up-until-now pro Russia stance that Trump set.
Actually, with Trump freezing out both Hegseth AND Gabbard, it looks like that Russian agent, and business associate of Trump jr, Sergey Goryachev is putting extra pressure on our corrupt and traitorous president. The one thing Russia definitely likes is sowing chaos.
Bonus conspiracy theory: Iran wasn't REALLY days away from a nuclear warhead. Rather they were still on track to get it eventually. However, Zelenski, a jew, urged Netanyahu to hit Iran now, since Israel would have to eventually, because this removes Iran's drones and other weapons supply to Russia. Consider that both Zelenski and Netanyahu recently conducted successful high profile missions without informing the USA at the same time the revelations about Sergey Goryachev refusing to fill out the security clearance paperwork and his association with the Trump family and his Soviet origins came to light.
Now, agent Krasnov's (aka Orange, aka Trump) presidential administration is in chaos as Trump faces a dilemma. If he goes against Iran, he's losing support of MAGA and risking Moscow releasing whatever Kompromat they have on Trump. If he doesn't get involved, Israel is going to send Iran back to the Stone Age. That also risks the ire of Moscow and making Trump look weak as well as subjecting Trump to press from APAC and direct pressure from Netanyahu.
All those conflicting things pulling at Trump really makes it seem like Zelenski pushed for Israel to act now...that whole "no cards" nonsense Trump, a Russian asset, was spouting didn't sit well with Zelenski, obviously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xisotopex - Paul wasn't an officer, he was an NCO. Anything strategic wasn't his responsibility. His focus was on his unit and keeping his men properly equipped and alive while accomplishing whatever objectives he was given by the platoon commander, directly, and on up the chain at the strategic level.
Whenever he's talking about strategy, it hurts my brain because the stuff he says is so foolish. He's blinded by his personal experience in dealing with only accomplishing local, tactical objectives, not having to consider wider strategy.
He's also, for whatever reason, unwilling to understand that the US military has all it's pieces on the board when it starts (or responds to) a fight. Ukraine's military isn't the US military and Paul talks strategy as though it was.
I mean, if Paul carried out his logic all the way of "I've been saying..."
He ought to be saying Ukraine should have already reached Moscow. The US military would've already been there, if Ukraine was the US, as Paul keeps mistaking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xisotopex - Great! I'm glad you understand the difference in ranks! I was trying to make it simple because your comment made it seem like you were 12 and only vague understanding.
However, Paul has said that he was an NCO.
Besides, his complete lack of understanding of anything strategic and of anything outside of small unit tactics show that he's never had any training related to anything on a strategic level, which he would've if he had been an officer.
Lastly, if he was an officer and didn't make captain, which would definitely give him strategic insight as a company commander (not "platoon commander"), he wasn't a very good officer.
Because he said he never lost anyone, was combat deployed, and has good understanding of small unit tactics, "bad" doesn't seem to fit.
He wasn't an officer. That's why his small unit and local tactics analysis is excellent and his strategic analysis is notably, horribly uninformed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
8:26 re, internet off
You can't call Russia foolish, odd, or evil for turning off the internet at night unless you say the same things about Ukraine.
I support Ukraine because I have a friend there (one of the Russian speakers Putin was supposedly trying to save, who has since abandoned her Russian heritage and says Russians are evil).
She's said that Ukraine will cut internet and electricity when the air raid warnings go off (at least in her city)
This is usually at night. So, the Russians are just copying Ukraine.
Cutting the electricity turns off the lights. That's an air raid staple since WWII to make finding targets harder in the dark.
Besides any possible long range guidance (say, from Russia), cutting the internet will stop any local hand-off guidance that may occur if there are Russian infiltrators, loyalists, or sympathizers helping with drone attacks.
Likewise, cutting the internet prevents such people from doing real time spotting or bomb damage assessment.
Remember the Lira guy you just did a recent story on? While probably not many, including agents or infiltrators, there are people working for Russia inside Ukraine.
We know that there are also Ukrainian operatives and partisans deep inside Russia. So, this apparently odd action of turning off the internet probably has some value and the only thing odd about it is that Russia seems to be learning and adapting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freemanreed5228 - there are a lot of "Republicans" who are actually just "anti-Democrats" and corrupting the party. Marjorie Greene is a lunatic and people like her are holding the weak Republican leaders, like Kevin Mccarthy hostage, driving the agenda from the backseat.
Mccarthy wants to be in power, so he won't actually lead. The same is true as you go up the ladder. Trump wasn't a leader. He was treating the presidency like a game show and playing the people against each other in hopes of staying in power.
Barrack Obama, bless his naive heart, was so focused on the "Russian reset" and dealing with the foreign mess Dubya left him that he didn't realize that Putin thought he was a "stupid black" (according to Julia ioffe's research on Putin and Russia) and just buying time to shape his bigger plans for what we now see him doing.
I think Biden is an anti-Constitutionalist, every bit as much as Trump was, in different ways, and out of touch. However, to his credit, he does have a good team of people who understand Russia as an enemy and the bigger picture of needing to stop Russia in Ukraine so that Putin isn't encouraged to try his luck in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or Poland.
A bully has to be stopped. Rolling over never stopped the next beating. When the US and UK failed to uphold their responsibility under the Budapest Memorandum at the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin viewed that as a green light to continue.
If he's not stopped in Ukraine and kicked out, he will definitely try again. If Ukraine were to be allowed to fall to Russia, Putin would absolutely try other former Soviet, now NATO countries that he sees as "Russian territory".
1
-
1
-
1
-
In criminal justice, there's a thing called "broken windows theory". If a building has a broken window, it's more likely to attract more windows being broken than a building with no broken windows.
Basically, chaos breeds chaos. Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine is a notable broken window for the world.
The longer the conflict keeps going, the more likely other chaotic things are to happen.
It's one other thing the "no aid to Ukraine" (remember 90% of US aid to Ukraine is spent INSIDE the USA) people aren't considering.
Sending aid to Ukraine, besides being a bargain at crippling an enemy of the Democratic world and providing future security for Europe, is also going to help return normalcy to the world, quicker.
Less aid to Ukraine, longer time before Russia is inevitably defeated, the more chaos the world will see because we keep having more windows broken: N Korea, Iran, Yemen, etc.
1
-
1
-
@carolwilliams8511 - You're right, the actions of HAMAS are not condoneable.
I wish Russian civilians could understand the barbarity they are visiting upon Ukranian civilians by their tacit and complicit support for Putin, his war in Ukraine, and the barbaric actions of the Russians in Ukraine.
However, I wouldn't support Ukraine behaving like the Russians or like HAMAS. They'd lose the moral high ground, for one thing and have to live with themselves afterwards for another which would be difficult if they aren't the barbarians that the Russians are.
The situation in Isreal is that at the tactical level, BOTH Israel and HAMAS act like barbaric Russians. At the strategic or regional level, Isreal is very similar to Russia.
When HAMAS has, in the past, basically flung fireworks at Isreal and Isreal responded by indiscriminately killing women and children with tanks and helicopter gunships, Isreal wasn't preventing future HAMAS attacks, Isreal was creating the next generation of HAMAS fighters and guaranteeing future attacks, like the one we saw yesterday.
Israel's policies regarding occupying Palestinian territory, which is internationally recognized as illegally, limiting access to mutual holy sites, oppression and discrimination against Palestinians, and general bullying of its neighbors guarantees two things: there will ALWAYS be armed conflict OR Isreal will murder every last Palestinian.
Obviously, if Netanyahu could snap his fingers and eliminate every Palestinian, he'd certainly choose option B, above.
*Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself don't become a monster.
It's sadly ironic that this is yet another similarity between Isreal and Russia. Putin, delusionally proud of his Soviet heritage, hates Nazis (while also enjoying the excuse they give him) because they put the USSR in great pain in WWII. Putin has been acting very much like Hitler, both in his propaganda, operation of the state, and militarily to include micromanaging the war to the detriment of the war effort.
Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history and had a genocide attempted against them in WWII. Now, with Isreal and the Jewish people under no existential threat (other than that of their own creation through bad regional policies), Isreal is persecuting its neighboring people and trying to enact a virtual genocide on the Palestinians.
The behavior of HAMAS isn't acceptable in the civilized world. Neither is Israel's behavior and the civilized world should stop enabling Isreal simply because Western countries want a non Muslim, non Arab ally in the region.
Putin is a monster. Netanyahu is a monster. The barbaric Russian soldiers in Ukraine are monsters. The barbaric HAMAS fighters are monsters. The complicit, enabling Russian sheep of a citizenry are monsters. The complicit, enabling ignorant Isreali citizenry are monsters.
There won't be peace for Isreal until Isreal quits provoking or eliminates Palestinians. Isreal is absolutely, ultimately, to blame for the HAMAS attacks.
But, this is part of the cycle of a dictatorial government maintaining power. As Russia does, create an existential threat so that a strong, unquestionable government is required to "defend its people."
It's a vicious cycle and requires an ignorant and lazy populace, which both the Russian and Isreali people have been trained to be over the past several decades.
Isreal really is the Russia of the Middle East and should be treated like such by the civilized world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BeanOfBean - well, let's see
Russia: attack Ukraine to prevent them from joining NATO
Also Russia: attacking Ukraine gave Ukraine the biggest incentive for trying to join NATO
Russia: attack our poor (but large), non aggressive neighbor to show the world, especially our frienemy China, how strong our military is
Also Russia: show immense weakness in battlefield tactics, strategic planning, logistics, poorly maintained equipment, corrupt military and political structures that saw equipment "disappear", and by bombarding civilian targets instead of military targets
Yeah, blocking the streets to protest climate change so traffic has to stop and waste fuel, putting more climate affecting exhaust gases into the air is indeed #RussianLogic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JHN12x12 - The Cole incident was entirely preventable as was the Marine barracks bombing.
Again, properly trained and led...
Besides, the OP was talking about drones hitting a carrier. That's a LOT different than an ancillary ship that's stationary in port in a foreign country.
Could a surprise attack be carried out by drones? Sure. 9/11 could've been done by drones, in this day and age.
However, once we're at war, if leadership does its job, then getting a drone (air or sea) near a carrier would be virtually impossible unless it was a swarm large enough to overwhelm the amount of ammunition the group is carrying.
Iran or the Houthi, for instance, aren't going to be sinking US Navy ships, at sea, with drones the way Ukraine is doing with Russia.
The littoral space is still a genuine concern. Moskva wasn't sunk by drones. Missiles and drones are about 50/50 in Black Sea Bingo. Defending against a missile, in the littoral space is going to be more difficult than against either air or sea drones.
It's partly why drone boats as the actual Ukrainian LCS is such a strong thing. Losing a drone boat isn't a huge deal. Effective use of a drone boat to sink a much more expensive surface ship within its range is a big deal.
Again, though, the US isn't really in a geographical position where it needs to defend itself in a near shore area. We might need to defend others, Taiwan, or other SEA countries but they're probably also stocking up on anti ship missiles if they're worried about China.
Russia has never been a "navy" country. Whenever they've tried to project naval power, historically, they've failed.
Getting back to the Moskva example, that was training and readiness related and entirely preventable. The Moskva's point defense weapons were offline, probably due to maintenance issues but maybe crew training issue, while the ship was in a state of "special military operation" and should've been ready to defend itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:14 if Mexico invaded the US and captured southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, then the US recaptured California and Arizona, but then the war became a slow, slog around New Mexico, the United States wouldn't talk cease fire or negotiate peace and let Mexico keep the US state of New Mexico.
And, some Americans don't even know that New Mexico is a US state, not any part of the country of Mexico. For foreign readers, in the US, anything to do with "Mexico" becomes a political issue because the Republican talking point is hating Mexicans. Some ignorant Americans will react negatively to the state of New Mexico, thinking it's something to do with the political issue of Mexican immigrants.
I mention all that to point out that US still wouldn't just give up New Mexico to have peace in the absurd example of Mexico invading the US.
It's beyond reason why any American would expect Ukraine to give up territory and capitulate to Putin's nuclear terrorism for a temporary peace when Ukraine is steadily wearing Russia down and liberating its territory and people from illegal and barbaric Russian occupation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be fair, on our devices, some of it genuinely is word replace sneaking a change in after we type the word we want or word suggest changing the suggestions right as it's below your finger and you don't notice the change. (seriously, as I was typing that, word suggest tricked me into tapping "do" instead of "don't" which only COMPLETELY changes the meaning!)
That said, a lot of people don't understand what contractions (or some basic acronyms) are anymore. It's as if they never had the subject taught.
"Could of", "would of", "should of" blow my mind. People don't realize this is homonym gibberish for the contractions of "could have" or "could've", etc.
MC or Master of Ceremony turning into "emcee", literally, as if it's a word on its own is another that drives me nuts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This design was eventually going to fail regardless of anything else simply because carbon fiber being compressed and then stretching back out is applying fatigue each time. Carbon fiber isn't like steel, aluminum, or titanium in that those materials can be tested by non destructive methods to asses their condition.
Carbon fiber has to be cut into, or destroyed, to truly asses the condition of the material. The Titan had that experimental electrical conductivity method that Rush hoped would indicate if the CF was deteriorating. The problem is that even if that device worked (and based on Rush's other decisions, it's likely it was just smoke and mirrors for customer peace of mind), if you detect a problem at depth, you can't do anything to avoid what happened.
The Navy wanting to use a material that's guaranteed to fail and can only be properly assessed by destroying it doesn't surprise me. Total waste of money even experimenting with it. You'd have to build, test, and destroy enough full size models to determine a safe replacement interval and then replace the carbon fiber segment well before the required replacement interval (before the failure point) to account for variance.
On a sub that goes down and up much more often than the sight seeing vessel, it's just dumb to even play with CF. It's a waste of money experimenting (remember, this is taxpayer money that could be spent on proven military systems like the littoral combat ships...oh, wait... Or schools, roads, reduced taxes, etc) and a waste of money if they actually try to build one (see the failed LCS program and failed Zumwalt program).
The US Navy, for all their cost cutting (including slimming of the USMC's mission and capabilities) is EXCELLENT at wasting money on things that are guaranteed to not work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@animewitch1416 - You're thinking about people who obey laws, which by the very definition isn't criminals.
Anyone 12 and up (someone who can reach the pedals and see over the wheel) can use a car as a weapon and many families have two, gassed up and ready to go at any time.
Everyone who's watched mom or dad drive for several years or played a video game understands the basics of keys in the ignition, wheel, brakes, gas, and (nowadays) auto transmission.
An angry, confused, dissociated person driving a car into a playground or other public area ends in the sane result as the same person with a rifle...except usually the car is already in the driveway, no purchase necessary.
If anti gunners (aka anti Constitutionalists) REALLY want to save lives, they'll quit yammering about "feel good" legislation (laws that make them feel good for having passed some law, without regard to if the law is effective at saving lives). Instead, they'd start trying to craft legislation and allocate budget to address the ACTUAL causes of violence: mental health, socioeconomic condition and mobility, and societal dissociation.
All 3 of those factors were root causes in Uvalde, access to guns was not a root cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
F-16 will be playing Fogger with the Su 34 and mig 29 lobbing R37 missiles at them from 150 km away, the same situation Ukraine's current jets face.
Ukraine needs the Gripen or Typhoon and the Meteor air to air missile to counter the Russian combat air patrols that F-16 can't reach with its aim 120 amraam missile's much shorter range, about 40km, that would require the F-16 to fly into Russian ground based air defense coverage.
Despite being the quintessential dog fighter, the F-16, in Ukraine, would primarily be used for close air support, sending JDAM-ER to Russian positions along the front and, possibly, interdiction on the Black Sea, using Harpoon, if Russia is using ships to launch missiles at Ukraine.
There's no dog fighting in modern air combat. Since the US isn't sending F35, Ukraine needs one of the other Meteor capable jets to make it risky for Russian CAP planes to try lobbing their less agile R37.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paul, you should subscribe to Perun channel. His presentations correct some of the stuff you get wrong. They're long but work great as a podcast you listen to.
Regarding the population numbers, it's not as simple as "Russia has more". Perun has a presentation on this from last year, iirc.
Besides the obvious issues of can Russia train, equip and put new troops in vehicles (or will they be headed to the front in "up armored" golf carts and "attack" scooters - No joke), there are other factors to consider.
Russia needs to recruit them and the number of potential recruits is going to not include men from St Petersburg or Moscow, Russia's 2 largest cities and "Russia Proper", for the most part. This is because the wealthier people living there are only patriotic as long as it doesn't require anything from them and they know there the REST of the entire huge country is there to support those 2 cities of Russia Proper. So, the available number isn't as large as it seems.
2nd, Russia, with only 500k casualties is already seeing a breakdown of public services. Those water mains that were breaking during winter? There wasn't anyone to turn the water off. Men with valuable skills like mechanics are going to be prime recruiting material for the war effort to keep factories and equipment in Ukraine functioning.
At some point, society will just collapse under the weight of the missing men (sorry to burst any feminist bubbles).
You've mentioned population several times during the war, you should watch or listen to the Perun presentation.
Also, your recruiting numbers are a little high. During the Avdiivka assault, Russia was losing up to 1k per day. They were proud of themselves for getting their "recruiting" efforts up to the amount they were losing (around 30k per month).
Now, since ammunition is flowing to Ukraine again, the Kharkiv assault has casualties up to a peak of 1500 per day, at least a 20% yo 30% consistent increase over previous loss rates. That puts Russian "recruiting" again in negative territory with losses exceeding replacements.
The 30k Russian troops figure you might be confused about was how many troops Russia had staged for the Avdiivka offense and again about that many for the Kharkiv offensive. These are NOT how many troops Russia recruited during the month. It's how many Russia was able to stage in theater prior to the assault.
The Russian army has not been undergoing a net positive growth since before Avdiivka. Even Prigozhin talked about how the Russian army was weakened by losses, iirc, in his "truth propaganda".
Plus, that's not counting that fresh replacements, even with several months of training, cannot replace the diminished units that Russia had spent years training and equipping prior to the war.
Even if you just go by straight population numbers of 7 million to 21 million, Ukraine fighting on the defensive will have an advantage over Russia if they're eliminating Russians at greater than 3:1 ratio, which has been the case most of the war.
Plus, at some breaking point, the Russian people or oligarchs will just have had enough and want Putin gone. This is how the Soviet Union fell and the first Russian Empire before it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Orban is an Friend of an enemy of Europe. That makes Victor Orban and Hungary an enemy of Europe and an enemy of NATO.
One cannot shake hands with a fascist dictator that has invaded Europe while that war is still being fought without being considered an enemy of Europe.
Remember, Putin's plan wasn't to be mired in Ukraine for 3 years or more. His plan was to take control entirely of Ukraine within two weeks (3 days to Kyiv and replace the government). Then, Ukraine's resources, military, civilians, and industry would be added to Russia's and Russia would continue down the list of countries to invade (Maldova, the Baltics, Poland, etc).
Ukrainians are dying to protect the independence of Europe from Russia and Orban is shaking hands with person responsible for those deaths and the invasion of Europe.
Europe should really think hard about whether the United States would actually commit troops, resources, or our nuclear arsenal to defend NATO members from Russian aggression.
Former president Trump was like a puppy vying for Putin's affection (while Putin considers him a gullible, easily distracted fool to the point that Putin made sure to bring a young, attractive female translator to their meetings to befuddle and distract Trump).
If there's no constitutional amendment guaranteeing funding for NATO Article 5 action or an amendment guaranteeing that the US would directly military assist, then it's really just a HOPE on the part of Europe.
Remember, the reason Russia invaded Ukraine was ultimately due to a lack of deterrence. Putin is an isolated dictator who will fire or eliminate people who don't tell him what he wants to hear.
All it takes is an advisor telling Putin that the US will not respond to an attack on the Baltics and that Europe is too fractured because of Russian proxies or patsies within EU and NATO countries and Putin deciding that then is the time to add them to the new Russian Empire "that will last 1000 years" (as Putin has been quoted).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you don't want to get run over, don't play in the street.
Protesting is one thing, obstructing public roads, vandalizing, looting, commandeering private property, etc are completely different, criminal things.
Sure, in this case the person in the car, going the wrong way, was also wrong. However, he may obviously tried to avoid the people in the road.
Perhaps if they weren't blocking roads in the area, the driver would have gone another way and wouldn't have felt a need to plow through.
The fact is that stopping for a mob in a street can get you killed. At that point it's you or them. If you're willing to give your life for a stranger who's part of a mob blocking a street, by all means, stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump also said he was going to renegotiate or leave NAFTA, a trade treaty that is great for Canada and, especially, Mexico, but which largely screws America and Americans.
For all his bluster about the wall and border, every day hundreds of Mexican trucks, with Mexican drivers roll across the US border and they drive as far as Canada and then return to Mexico. Each of those Mexican trucks is 1 less American job in the truck plus lost jobs in border transload facilities (office staff, forklift drivers, local drivers). AND, it's a foreigner running back and forth through the country, unsupervised with practically zero vetting done on entry.
As horrible as NAFTA is and with the fact that it's letting Mexicans freely cross the border in trucks, I'd really hoped Trump would do something decent and actually renegotiate it or pull us out. Sadly the useless "wall" got the spotlight instead of something that would've made America better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, allow Russia to keep territory they've claimed and sign a peace agreement, with the stipulation that since Ukraine is at peace and none of its territory is occupied, Ukraine will be immediately allowed in to NATO.
First, we'd see if Putin is REALLY interested in that cease fire. Second, if Russia keeps any Ukrainian territory in a peace settlement, Ukraine immediately joining NATO is the only way Russia won't just rebuild, learn from their mistakes, and continue the invasion later. The precedent has already been set by Russia doing exactly that after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
If you reward a dog for pooping the rug, it's guaranteed to poop the rug again. Obama, during the "apology era" did virtually nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine via proxy forces, despite the fact that it was the USA that led the effort to trick Ukraine into giving up its Soviet era nuclear deterrent under Clinton.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yellowtunes2756 OK, now you're just reaching into some pretend land where propaganda you're fed is real.
First, Ukraine actually reached artillery parity and exceeded Russian long range fires in 2024 before the North Korean artillery arrived.
Ukraine also uses its long range fires to hit military (and strategic) targets. You may notice the nightly "what's on fire in Russia" news segment.
When Russia has had an advantage in artillery fires, they've also been fighting on the offensive more than Ukraine. Artillery is much more effective on troops and vehicles out in the open (such as Ukraine firing on attacking Russians) than artillery landing near built up defenses (such as Russia firing into cities, trenches, and earthworks).
Russia fires more artillery but with less accuracy, precision, and intelligence on targets (Russia actually fired on Belgorod civilians when trying to dislodge the Russian Freedom brigade).
As with their manpower advantage, Russia largely threw away its artillery advantage and that was before artillery became the top target priority, Russia blew out the barrels by firing so much further reducing accuracy, and then ran into shell shortages in 2024.
Thanks again for the comment and allowing me the chance to correct your conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1:46 Noooo. Vincero?? These "affordable" watches are garbage ripoffs. You can find the same thing for $5 per bucket on Aliexpress (not a copy or fake, but the exact same watch minus the label).
Shilling for Vincero is as bad, if not worse than, advertising for Nord.
At least you aren't wearing a Rolex while shilling this garbage watch (looking at you, Alpha M and Vehicle Vigins).
Viewers, please. If you're going to spend $100 to $200 for a watch, look into a quality affordable REAL watch from a brand like Seiko, Orient, Timex, Casio, or the many micro brands putting out quality pieces in this price range.
If you're already interested watches or in learning more about watches I recommend:
Long Island Watch (retailer of affordable brands with helpful vids),
The Time Teller (reviews of watches and his "I bought a MVNT watch so you don't have to" vid applies to Vincero),
The Urban Gentry (controversial personality that some consider fake, but decent entertainment and good coverage of affordable as well as high end brands and his video "Daniel Wellington" applies to Vincero)
If you're looking for for an affordable, quality watch PLEASE do some research before wasting $200.
Shame on you, Jeremy for shilling this crap. Get a gig job delivering stuff between edits if you need cash bad enough to take on garbage sponsors like Nord and Vincero.
You have some interesting vids, but you're completely unwatchable because of the sponsors you pick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nowandaround312 I haven't looked at a corporate place like petsmart specifically, but most places have a surcharge for dogs require extra time or schedule them last.
My previous dog passed away 16 years ago, but that's how it was at the private place he went to and at petsmart, iirc.
My current pup has only been with me a few months and has been to petsmart. Since she was a stray and I didn't know if she'd ever been professionally groomed, I scheduled in the afternoon one of or maybe the last appointment for that groomer. While the dog's coat was in good shape (short hair Border Collie Husky mix), I did figure that she might require extra attention since it might be her first such grooming.
The tech was understanding and didn't change extra even though she had to take the nozzle apart to just use the hose. She even threw in a cologne spritz and bandana despite the package I'd ordered not including those extras.
Obviously, YMVW based on the management and how much flexibility they give the groomers at such places.
There's also a difference between a dog that might require an extra 30 minutes and one that requires an extra 2 hours, plus cleanup. If I knew I was in such a situation and I was trying to go to a place like petsmart instead of a independent type place, that might have more negotiating flexibility, I'd probably book 2 appointment times back to back and then call them, talk to the groomer and see how they felt about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
9:15 man, it makes me feel old having to say:
These stupid, lazy kids don't realize that most people, including Biden and the Ukrainians fighting it, want to end the war
The question then isn't do we want to end this war. The question is HOW can the war be ended in a way that assures Ukraine's territorial integrity and security.
I bet if I barge into her house and tell her that I live there now, she's going fight to get me out, calling the police, getting a restraining order, macing me, etc.
She damn sure won't be interested in sitting down and discussing a settlement where I continue living her home as long as I agree to not attack her.
Lazy idiots aren't thinking about the right question or how to answer it or bothering to research the issue.
That's why it's important that people watching channels like this continue trying to educate people about the fact that Ukraine is not part of Russia, Biden isn't making Ukraine fight, and Russia is entirely responsible for the loss of life on both sides and could end end the war tomorrow by recalling its forces back to Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Writer /Director is always a red flag and almost always a bad idea. They are 2 different jobs requiring 2 different sets of talents. Even George Lucas' Episode IV was only the success it was because he had close friends able to tell him "no, there's a better way to do this."
Taika Waititi should've immediately been pulled from Lady Thor when he said "the audience doesn't know what it wants until I give it to them." Translated, he's saying, "I'm such an egotistical narcissist that I don't care to understand what the customer wants." If you don't know what your customer wants, it's blind luck if you make the right product. You're throwing darts blindfolded after being spun in a few circles and just hoping you hit the wall the board is on, never mind the dartboard or actual bullseye.
What I like most about Critical Drinker's reviews is that he squeezes more entertainment and information into a product that has 5% of the viewer's time requirement compared to what he's reviewing. The Drinker understands what his audience wants, humor (entertainment) and information, and he provides it in a concise, useful format that respects his audience's time.
As it is, I was never going to watch Lady Thor. I can't stand the hypocrite Natalie Portman, the narcissist Taika Waititi, or the Abrams-esque over the top effects used to hide lack of story. I would like to thank the Drinker for valuing my time and confirming that this is a movie I didn't need to see and wouldn't have enjoyed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's going to be very difficult for a decent girl find and keep a decent guy.
If he hasn't put in the effort to learn attraction building He's not going to appeal to her caveman brain and she will lose whatever attraction she initially had.
4:02 This is also why a guy doesn't necessarily need to be jealous or act controlling when his girl is talking to another guy.
Sure, if she's getting digits, that's a red flag, but if a guy fails a jealousy shit test that's going to cost him a lot, she's going to lose attraction towards him. Acting jealous is serious beta behavior.
Remember guys, you want to be a POTENTIAL source of validation not an ACTUAL source of validation to keep your girl chasing YOU. Women NEED validation, though. So, she's going to have to talk to other guys to get that free validation. Keep a weather eye, but be confident that she's with you don't act jealous.
If you ever feel like you need to check her phone or listen in as she's talking to people, you need to do a self check and determine if the problem is you not moving on from previous girls that may have cheated, or just personal insecurity issues or if the girl is actually giving you reason to doubt her loyalty.
Either way, you probably need to end that relationship. Either she's cheating or she's not but you are acting with such lack of confidence that she's going to lose attraction for you and start cheating or leave you (self fulfilling prophecy due to your beta behavior caused by your insecurity).
This leads us back to the problems a girl will have keeping a good guy. She's going to have to put in a lot of effort to control her evolutionary, automatic desire to shit test.
Most good guys are going to fail these tests. This will cause her to lose attraction. If she doesn't do the shit test, he can't fail it, her caveman brain won't have the chance to find him less attractive.
The girl is also going to have to find ways to keep her good guy acting in his masculine frame and not getting lazy and falling into beta behaviors.
Date night? Don't let him get away with "whatever you want honey." You need to help him learn that HE needs make a fkn decision.
You've got the car? Offer to let him drive. Your eyes are tired, you had a drink before leaving, etc.
You want to ask him for a backrub? Go fetch him a beer first, letting him see that there should be a give and take instead of him just doing things for you.
Ideally, he'll catch on and act like a man without your coaching. This will allow you to fall back into your femine and be more natural and enjoyable for you both.
Ladies, if you think you found a good guy, but you realize that he acts too much like a woman for you to stay attracted to him, try and let him "find" resources like "How to be a 3% man" by Corey Wayne (free ebook on his website) and other resources that will help him learn both how to be a man and how to maintain your attraction.
It will be very difficult for a girl to stay attracted to a guy and keep respecting him if he doesn't know how to not act feminine or beta and if he doesn't understand how to actually build and maintain a woman's attraction.
Ladies, most men are working against a lifetime of feminist based, beta male propaganda in all forns of media and single moms not being equipped to teach their sons how to be men.
You may think your fine with a beta male, he's nice and takes care of you. However, your caveman brain won't allow you to respect him or maintain any initial attraction. You will sabotage the relationship.
One last thing, ladies, if you're legitimately a 9 or 10, dreaa yourself down to a 7 or 8 and try to act accordingly. Most guys simply won't actually be able to handle a relationship with a 9 or 10 correctly. The guy's behavior around you, especially in public or social situations, will kill your attraction to him. He'll get needy, lose confidence that he deserves you, etc if you too attractive.
Remember, he's fighting a lifetime of beta male propaganda. He's not ready to be a man around a very attractive woman.
Keep telling him he's out of your league and you're so lucky to have nabbed him. Fake it til he he starts to believe it. You'll need to help him learn how to be confident that he does deserve a beautiful girl. Helping him get rid of his self doubt will help you relax and enjoy his companionship.
"She's out of my league" (2010) shows this off very well and is a great resource for guys wanting to know how NOT to act around a really attractive woman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Treadwell - Thanks for backing up my point that the key to a non stupid reopening of "business as usual" centers around adequate and immediate testing capacity.
If we can determine and isolate flare ups, we can all get back to more normal routines without adding stupid risk.
That would probably require close to a billion test kits by year's end because people will need to be tested as flare ups happen, which may mean more than once and through flu season when people will present ill with "something" and a potential covid19 resurgence.
Currently, around 2 million Americans have been tested. So, we have some ramping up to do.
What your sarcasm fails to realize is that 60,000 additional deaths on top of all the things you list is a lot and another 60,000 unnecessary deaths in a relapse would be both stupid, cruel, and worse for the economy.
The thing with covid19 is that there's no immunity to it in the population. If you come in contact with it, you're going to get sick. You may be lucky and have symptoms so mild that you don't notice. Or, you may die.
Deaths from traffic collisions (notice I didn't say "accidents") are mostly preventable. Very few collisions are not preventable if drivers are actually paying attention to... Wait for it... Driving.
Heart disease? Put the cheeseburger down. Or, enjoy the cheeseburger and die early. Your choice, but preventable.
Some cancers are mostly preventable.
Covid19 isn't preventable, if you come in contact with it. And it's currently killing more people per day than previous champs cancer and heart disease.
Worse, survivors of serious cases are likely going to have damage to lungs, heart, and kidneys, from the virus attack on the lungs and the follow on effects of low oxygen in the blood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm going to rate this experiment and video presentation at 3/10 legitimacy.
It would have been more interesting (or less interesting, depending on perspective) if you tried this with people who knew how to ride a bike.
Your assessment of steering not working when you're sitting still was also incorrect. Ask anyone who's sat still, feet on pedals, waiting to drag race cars at a stoplight...that's not even getting into people who do trick riding.
You're assessment of a bike not being able to be ridden with locked steering is also incorrect. You can't steer to adjust lean to correct for weight transfer, but you can adjust your own weight above the bike. Any kid who ever crashed and had a brake cable bind up preventing steering could tell you that.
Also, gyroscopic force will keep the bike up, but only at higher speed. Say, if you locked the bars while going down hill. With the caveat that rider input or movement will actually work against the natural gyroscopic stabilization. Obviously, that's an unsafe experiment (especially with your volunteers that can't ride a bike anyway).
I used to race BMX, wasn't even very good or successful with it, but can still see that if you had chosen different riders (ones who were more accustomed to weight shift) your experiment would have had different outcomes.
As a final note, the test bike was too tall for every rider shown and that on its own would make riding difficult even with normal steering. I'd suspect that you also didn't have a beneficial gearing, instead choosing a gearing that would encourage more force to pedal and thus more weight shift that would need to be countered (either by steering or adjusting the position of the rider atop the bike).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CamberRockerCamber - No, while I can appreciate it's engineering, the R35 is not a car that I'll ever like.
It's more plain and unimpressive, visually, than corvettes prior to the MR. I love the corvette, but you see them as often as a camry or accord. That just makes it "normal" and plain. There's just nothing really special about the base models.
The R35 has a similar but different problem. It's rather uncommon and I don't see many (even in DFW, where a fair few exist). However, when I DO see one, there's still just nothing special about the car. Because it's fairly rare, I'll find myself thinking, "Oh, is that a new Acura or Hyundai?" (Disclaimer, since I have the car I want I don't keep up to date on most modern, new cars.)
My lack of ability to recognize the latest model of X or Y aside, the R35 has the problem that it's styling is just so bland that it doesn't stand out.
To be fair, the R34, which I also love, has this problem somewhat also. The first time I saw one up close in the shop my car goes to, I wondered what an accord was doing at a Nissan performance shop.
However, turn the key or have it drive past you on the road and it calls attention to itself in a way that the R35 just doesn't. The RB motor just sounds so much better than the v6 in the R35. Again, the engine and exhaust note just don't have a visceral nature to them, even the R35 is making more power and has a higher tech drive train.
This is a problem that electric cars have, too. They are going to be the quickest cars on the road and tech marvels, but absolutely uninspiring to the senses.
So, no. I won't be a fan of the R35 in 15 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wayneroworth5669 - As with the stealth ship idea, it's good in theory, but useless from a practical standpoint.
Have you seen how many collisions the USN has managed with normal navigation protocol and radar active?
Switch those radars off and you'll end up with Zumwalts taking themselves out of the fight by running into something.
How often does the USN conduct training exercises for navigation without radar?
The next issue is that without targeting radar, the Zumwalts would have more difficulty hitting direct targets.
Any normal navy ship, without broadcasting anything, will still be visible on radar.
As for the Zumwalt, if it was using targeting information from another source, once it fires its weapons (assuming there was ammunition or it was refit with missiles), it's going to announce itself.
Sure, getting a surprise shot could be useful, but not at the outrageous cost of these ships.
Again from a practical standpoint, 3 Zumwalt ships make no impact on fleet operations compared to the 62 Arleigh Burke destroyers in service, plus several more new build ships contracted for.
It's just cheaper to build ships that work and are proven then to spend even more billions trying to sort out the Zumwalt's issues while still having to build new Arleigh Burkes to fill the gap between now and whenever the Zumwalt might have grown into its oversized shoes.
Zumwalt was a very expensive testbed for automation and other new technologies, stealth being a very minor part of the mix (but the most mentioned due to its unusual looks). The same thing happened with the new LCS ships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
9:50 "Russia" wasn't "The USSR". Putin would need to send his lawyers to either the UN or the Supreme Court of the USSR to try and get something legal regarding the illegality of the breakup of the USSR.
Russia was just a Republic, like any of the other republics, within the USSR. If Putin is trying to assert that Russia WAS the USSR, then he's also saying that he is in fact trying to forcibly rebuild the Russian Empire and rebuild it out of independent nations that either the USSR or previous Russian Empire had unlawfully subjugated.
This is also the reason it's imperative to stop Russia in Ukraine, remove Russian political and military forces from all of Ukraine, and unequivocally tell Russia "No, you can't invade former Soviet states."
Otherwise such sham legal rulings inside Russia would give Putin "legal" standing to invade Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Hungary (we should probably just give Hungary back to Russia tbh), etc.
If Putin uses his "legal" standing to invade any of those countries, because we failed to tell him "No", that would result in direct Russia and NATO confrontation.
The fight to get Russia out of Ukraine is the fight to prevent WWIII.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hanse81 - If being able to observe, use logic, and draw conclusions is your idea of being mentally deficient, then I'm happily mental deficient.
Although, since you say that disparagingly, you must mean you aren't able to observe, use logic and draw conclusions.
Apparently, when I said to look with brain instead of your heart, you realized you're unable to do so.
So, I'll just say, "good luck in life," to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Basically, the question should be "is their an opportunity cost because the music is being played?"
In other words, is the owner of the copyright losing a potential sale because of the use of the copyright material.
No music sales or game sales are being lost because use in a stream. Ironically, it's the contrary and these DMCA claims are themselves costing potential sales due to loss of free advertising.
The streamer should just need to credit the copyright holder and artist.
First, the copyright holder can absolutely sue the streamer. Whether the copyright holder can get anything out of the streamer is irrelevant. Back in the original Napster era, a housewife of a not wealthy household was sued for uploading a few songs and judgement against her was in tens of thousands. Copyright holder is just out to prove a point (the point that they can and that the laws are wrong).
Second, the music industry STILL hasn't figured out how to use the internet to their marketing advantage. They are still fighting it, trying to put the genie back in the bottle instead of innovating their marketing to leverage free advertising in an era of easy online micro transactions.
Somewhere in Music Industry HQ, there's a couple 80 year old dudes arguing over whether CDs will replace cassette tapes as the newest music media. Clueless is an understatement.
Third, there WAS internet pron in 98, but it was mainly gif and jpg or rare very short low res vid clips. However, there wasn't streaming; you had to download it and then open the file with the appropriate viewer or player.
Finally, the worst thing about DMCA is that it doesn't benefit the artists because they often don't own the rights to their own music. So, an artist who wants their music able to be played in a stream will be shut down by the record label.
So, DMCA claims help hide that artist from people who might not know about them and who might like the song and want to see if go buy a track digitally.
We want to earn more money!
-music industry
We need to ensure people can't easily find and buy music in the digital, e-commerce, micro transaction age.
-also, music industry
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tugela60 - "the only way...is by finding a weak point..."
That's exactly what Ukraine has been doing on the southern, Zaporizhia area front. They've also been doing the same things that brought them success in Kherson and Kharkiv, pushing on the Russians to find a weak point (as happened in Kharkiv) and making them fight to use up ammo, food, and medical supplies while attacking supply depots and lines in order to make staying put untenable, regardless of how well fortified they are (as was case in Kherson).
Kherson was a nasty and costly fight for Ukraine. It was also hugely successful. As for Ukraine not having resources to push on the Russian positions, that's debatable if what Ukraine is saying is true about the bulk of their force still being available.
The issue of why, if they have more units, doesn't Ukraine send more in it's because the speedbump is the minefields. No point in committing more troops until a path is cleared and /or a weak point that can be exploiter is found.
Paul is pretty much an idiot when it comes to strategic and big picture issues. That's also totally OK because his job as an NCO was being good at the local, tactical level. Basically, his mental muscle memory of what would've benefited him in a tactical situation is blinding him to being able to see the entire battlefield instead of each individual pocket of it. He could answer his own "head scratcher" questions and come up with better strategic analysis if he would just think about it for a bit.
It's like asking "why won't this door open?!" while tugging on the handle. Stop tugging on the handle, look at the door and think about it. You realize that the door is locked, or even sneakier, that it's a push to open. Paul's job was pulling on doors to open them and his life depended on it. So, he can't see locks or push to open signs. That's also why NCOs aren't deciding the strategy, general officers are. Again, that's the way it's supposed to be.
It's just that if Paul wants to branch out to strategic analysis, he ought to break himself of the habit of analyzing a situation tactically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Somebody who knows about these things thought it was a good idea to make an R rated, ultra violent film made for teenage girls (who aren't old enough to get in and who's parents won't let them see it) and SJWs/feminists who don't go see movies.
Aaand, if the movie fails, it's men's fault.
I actually liked Suicide Squad, except for the totally unbelievable "special" forces guy who wore a ball cap 5 sizes to big for his head.
I like Margo Robbie and thought she was good as Harley. I had no interest in an "angry, crazy chicks beat up men" movie.
Protip: instead of woke Harley, do regular Harley.
Peppermint was a good action movie with a female lead. I'm not a fan of Jennifer Garner, but she handled the role well, obviously spent time training to make her weapon handling as good as Keanu in John Wick.
Action sequences were better than JW2 because in Peppermint they weren't dragged out "guy falls down, guy gets 2nd wind, guy falls down, guy gets 3rd wind" silliness.
While Garner was a mother on a mission of revenge, the same story would have worked had it been a father out for revenge. The lead was female, but that wasn't the fulcrum of the film.
1
-
These statements of Ukrainian attacks on eastern Ukraine "separatist regions" are false.
I have a an ethnic Russian Ukrainian friend who fled Donetsk before the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. She still has family and friends who live in the Donbas region.
When I told her war was coming, she explained that her people in Donbas were confused by the Russian media they were seeing talking of how Russia was going to come protect them because Ukraine had been shelling them.
They were confused because Ukraine hasn't been shelling, bombing, or attacking the eastern regions controlled by Russian proxies (the initial "separatists" weren't Ukrainian Russians, they were foreign criminals and anarchists bussed in by Putin and aided by Russian special forces advisors). My Russian friend's word for these foreign "separatists" is "terrorists".
Ukraine has been holding the line and preventing the Russian proxies from moving further into Ukraine, but Ukraine hasn't been bombing eastern Ukraine.
Don't take my word for it, I could be making it all up. Instead, get your information from someone who lives there. Then, instead of blindly eating the propaganda you're being fed, you will have the truth.
However, if you can't communicate with a normal person in Donbas, do a little thinking. You suggest Ukraine has been shelling Donbas and Luhansk for 8 years.
In 2 days Russian shelling has leveled much of Mariupol and Kharkiv. After EIGHT YEARS of shelling, there would be nothing left of Donbas or Luhansk regions. Yet, if you look at the "separatists" own media, you'll see normal looking cities and satellite images corroborate.
Think a little.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding Ukraine going into Crimea, I'm not sure if it was covered, but Ukraine already has units in the Russian held territory between the Dnipro river and Crimea.
We can guess they are scouting Russian defenses and assessing supply and other "set up" targets for a potential attack into that region. Such an attack would drive the Russians into Crimea.
At that point, Ukraine doesn't have to attack into Crimea. Ukraine can knock out the Kerch Straight bridge and use its shore based anti ship missiles (hello, Moskva) to prevent resupply to Crimea.
As mentioned, Crimea can't sustain itself. Eventually, the situation will become untenable for Russia.
If Putin hadn't been hell bent on rebuilding the Russian Empire, he could've signed a 200 year lease to keep the bases on Crimea and not try to bypass the oil transport fees it was paying to pump oil into Europe through Ukraine.
But, we know Putin is mentally ill, suffering delusions of grandeur and, generally, Russia has no interest in being a good neighbor. The concept of "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" has no analogue in Russian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J_Dubb1 - in Paul's case, Idk. I don't get the feeling he doesn't care about the guys fighting in Ukraine. As an American patriot, he must realize the similarities between our fight for independence from England and Ukraine's fight for the same from Russia.
Further, he's been in combat as a small unit leader (if we take his word, I have no reason not to) and is proud that he didn't lose anyone. So, as an NCO in a combat zone, caring about the lives of his troops was part of the job. I find it hard to believe that completely fades.
He does heavily promote his paid offerings, preciously patreon, now his website. Perhaps he's repeatedly harping on it to inject drama? Perhaps, he's just muscle memory looking at the immediate tactical situation, which would've been his job and wanting to shoot the guys shooting at you seems reasonable from that perspective...and it's higher level leadership that has to temper such strategically frivolous human nature.
He knows it's muddy. He's shown it in vids. He knows Ukraine is just beginning to receive the Western armor and that such units take time to fit and form. He knows Bakhmut is only valuable because Russia has agreed to suicide into a "defensive offense" there.
He's talked about all that. Why he actually keeps harping on why no counterattack is bonkers. The reason it bothers me the most is that it makes all the rest of what his analysis look suspect AND gets people who don't understand the issues mentioned above (which Paul has covered) riled up that Ukraine isn't doing anything. That is a problem because we just ran into that actual problem with our lazy Afghan "friends" who's greatest tactical maneuver was not fighting the fight we'd trained and equipped them over 20 years for.
Ukraine has fought off the Bear next door, "world's 2nd most powerful military" and to offer analysis that implies Ukraine isn't doing anything is just wrong.
Full disclosure, I have a friend in Ukraine. So misinformation gets me riled up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If it's a normal grooming place, there's probably a target time limit per dog, as other dogs will be coming in if scheduled. So, if the dog does anything that extends grooming time (having to repeatedly start and stop as the dog fights with being washed or trimmed or time to don and doff muzzle or extra securing harnesses, etc) then they are going to call the extra time required "difficult" and charge extra.
Vanessa is doing it free and taking however long it takes. So, there's also reduced stress and anxiety feedback from the dog not having a stressed groomer to emotionally feed off of.
So, regarding the "why" was the dog labeled difficult, if it's a long list of little things, the groomer isn't taking notes and after the job is done, he's just been "difficult".
When my rescue got her first groom, she didn't like the hose nozzle. The girl had to disassemble it. Dog was surprisingly fine with the dryer and her nails were already short from running outside and digging, probably. That was 1 specific issue and I'd warned them it was probably her 1st groom and booked the latest appointment.
On the next groom at a different location, but 6 months later once the dog was more comfortable being herself (Border Collie Husky mix), she didn't like the bath at all and was trying to climb out, didn't like her nails trimmed (warned them she spazzed if she saw clippers), and HATED the dryer. Fortunately, I was out front talking to the manager and instead of getting "your dog is too difficult", the girl asked if I'd come back and help calm or hold the dog so she could get dried.
It was still a rough 2 person job and I was combing fluff out of my beard for a while after, but at least she wasn't trying to jump off the table. She needed to get blow dried because her undercoat was shedding and brushing also resulted in a fight /play response. I suspect she got sprayed with water and hit with a brush by a previous owner. I mean, I'd believe that from good folks who would dump a dog on the street.
Anyway, at billing, there was an up charge as she was "more husky like" and I didn't argue because I was happy they didn't just stick her in the drying crate and start on the next dog. But, since I was there (made time to hang out there), I saw how "difficult" she was first hand. I think they appreciated that I didn't just drop her off knowing she might be difficult and then show up later arguing about how exactly was dog difficult.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's sooo much cheaper in materiel to send the equipment to Ukraine while Ukranians are spending the blood.
If Putin was sane and Russia logical and predictable from a rational perspective, there wouldn't be a war in Ukraine.
It is entirely possible that Russia will invade a Baltic country, especially since Putin marked Estonia's prime minister with a "hit" for their support of Ukraine. Putin views Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia as part of Russia every bit as much as he views Ukraine part of Russia.
The more we act weak in United States on Ukraine, the more likely Putin is to view that as a green light. That's what happened when the US and UK did virtually nothing after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Sure, Putin can't win in the Baltics, but he couldn't win in Georgia or Ukraine and invaded both of those TWICE.
Invading a NATO country means US will be sending equipment anyway AND troops to go fight Russia.
Sending Ukraine everything they need to defeat Russia is the CHEAPEST way to get the world (including the USA) out of the situation Putin put everyone in. Defeating Russia in Ukraine is paramount to preventing Russia from invading a NATO country and getting us all perilously close to WWIII.
If Trump has his way, wins the presidency, and doesn't uphold NATO obligations, then it's guaranteed that Russia will invade a Baltic country and very likely that France or the UK may be forced to respond with a nuclear attack if the USA isn't part of NATO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amber Heard's aggression was based in something all girls and women do. It started as a standard "shit test".
A woman's cave man brain wants her to be with a strong male who can protect and ensure survival of her and her offspring.
If in the start of their courtship Johnny had choked her during sex, physically dominating her, none of this would be a news story.
Basically, she would push and instead of standing up to her and telling her to shut it, he would take the high road and try to walk away from the fight.
This would make her push harder to incite a masculine reaction from Johnny.
Her cave man brain says, "If he won't stand up TO me, he won't stand up FOR me to protect me (to keep her safe).
In the audio, she keeps saying doesn't feel safe. It's NOT that she doesn't feel safe from Depp. It's that her cave man brain feels unsafe because he is acting weaker than her.
There's one part of the audio where Depp does tell her to stop. He gives her a command and instead of inciting her more, she obeys his command and settles down. That's what she wants.
It's really a sad situation. Heard, and many "crazy" girls like her probably genuinely want to be with a nice, polite guy, but they can't relax into their feminine if the nice guy she's with won't stand up to her and show he can be more masculine than her.
Besides the "don't feel safe" the other thing she kept going back to was "when I start fighting you just walk away". She's telling him that she wants him to stand up to her.
This is all an extreme example of what happens when guys don't pass a girl's shit test AND the girl is telling him what she wants: make her "feel safe" by being more masculine than her and "don't walk away" (stand up to her).
Moral of the story, guys, don't be afraid to choke your gal during sex or to command her to shut up when she starts winding up an argument.
If course, if you satisfy her cave man brain, make sure it's not on video. Society will think you're a bad guy.
Women can do anything men can, except men aren't allowed to play the victim. Playing the victim is solely acceptable for the ladies.
Disney is crap. Little Bobby Iger (Disney CEO) is either retarded or suffering from Alzheimers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Putin chose to invade when the ground is muddy enough to prevent off-road travel for a reason.
Being road locked means Ukraine also can't go off road and use its excellent BTR4s and hunting teams in lighter off road vehicles to attack from any angle. Plus, the Russian supply trucks would be on the roads any way, without protection if Russian armor is off-road.
Further, Russia doesn't, for the most part, control territory in Ukraine (except NW of Kyiv). Russia controls roads, and even then, not entirely along their required supply routes.
If the ground was dry enough, solid enough for armor to move off-road, Russia would have to use many more troops to secure the regions in which they are now only trying to control roads in. Russia doesn't have the manpower and it would've slowed their planned rapid advance.
Again, moving armor off-road isn't practical if it leaves the supply trucks unprotected on the roads.
Once the ground dries, the Russian invasion stops completely as Russia will have to dig in and prepare for Ukraine to attack Russian positions from any direction. This is compounded by the fact that Russian units are losing combat efficiency due to losses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giantdad1661 - "small" is probably an understatement. Russia has devoted about 25% of their military to the Ukraine invasion.
I agree that, ideally, Russia would respond to a Ukrainian incursion with forces inside Russia. However, there's 2 issues with that.
First, it's not something that's in the current invasion plan. Russian doctrine is notoriously inflexible. Go by the plan, even if it becomes impossible. So, there would be immediate confusion about what to do. Rumors are that Putin, unhappy with his generals, has taken direct control of the war (which other infamous fascist leader fancied himself a better tactician than his generals?).
This means that instead of an immediate and appropriate response, Russian military leaders would be waiting for instructions on what to do, out of fear of reprisal for doing the wrong thing without having been told what to do (basically, being a scapegoat for bad leadership either way).
So, first is a confused response to something that wasn't in the plan (despite the fact that Russia is holding back some 700,000 troops for home defense).
Second, the troops in Ukraine are probably the closest combat ready troops to Belgorod. The troops inside Russia, in that area, are likely the units that are being reconstituted, resipplied, and refit. Based on the importance or stress that Putin has put on "winning" combined with the shredding of Russian battalion tactical groups (BTG) to combat ineffective levels, I'd be very surprised if there are combat ready BTGs near Ukraine that are just chilling while Russia is losing ground in nearby Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Picolas Cage - when I was in school, history teachers liked to tout the importance of history so that we don't repeat past mistakes.
In 1918, the world had a flu pandemic. We're not learning from history.
On the one hand, people say, "covid19 is just the flu," to dismiss its potential threat. Flu of 1918 WAS also "just flu".
On the other hand, people will say, "covid19 isn't as deadly as X, Y, or Z." Well, as you point out X, Y, and Z were contained earlier in the cycle and weren't afforded the opportunity to spread widely and become deadly.
Thanks for being one of the reasonable folks and bothering to look at facts and consider how these things actually work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:10 re, "everyone's hiring"
Fact check, studies have found that many businesses that post job openings are NOT actually hiring. They are posting job openings, help waned, etc soley to appease current workers who are saddled with unreasonable quotas, having to fill multiple roles, etc, basically overworked and under rewarded.
Management posts a job opening and tells the employees, "look I tried, I can't find anyone to hire", without ever intending to hire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertmarley8852 - Hello, Russian bot! Thanks for commenting and fueling the algorithm!
As a matter of fact, Putin's actions and his attempts at justifying those actions are very similar to Hitler's. Further, Putin is head of a fascist, authoritarian regime. As was Hitler. Putin is making the same war mistakes as Hitler, such as attacking the civilians with a terror campaign instead of attacking military targets. Putin is even so similar to Hitler that he underestimated the difficulty in fighting against Ukrainians (there were many Ukrainians fighting in the Soviet army of WWII).
The saying is, "Don't become what you hate."
However, I don't think Putin cares one way or the other about Nazis. Putin is merely using Nazis, NATO, gays, demons, and Satan worshipers as a means of indoctrinating his own ignorant sheep with some religious-like zeal in order to distract them and give them something to focus on. It's the same as with Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders who mis represent the Koran to people who are unable to read it for themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pomg6512 - Ahh, the "Jewish, gay, Satan worshipping Nazis slur..."
B urning out the barrel and getting rounds out is better than saving the barrel but losing the infantry they're supporting and better than saving the barrel and letting exposed Russians live.
You, like the Russian barbarians you support, aren't good at thinking big picture or two moves ahead.
Incidentally, back to your "Nazis" fetish... Russian media is now talking about, admitting that Russia's fascist dictator is rebuilding the Russian Empire... The THIRD Russian Empire.
That's right. While Russians and their pro Russian sheep are TALKING ABOUT Ukraine being full of Nazis, Russia is actually BEHAVING LIKE Nazi Germany during WWII, including having a deluded fascist dictator who is building a 3rd Reich.
That's sadly, ironically, hilariously true. "Beware that you don't become that which you hate."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danuk2136 - How is a any cause of death labeled? People notice when their friends and loved ones go missing and die. Then, people figure out what killed them.
C'mon man, use that brainwork you're talking about so much! How many people go missing every year on the open ocean? How many die on the open ocean without any cause of death?
If the answer is greater than one, then we know that orca are eating people out on the open ocean and all those unsolved missing people and unsolved dead people must have been killed by orca. Right?!
Use that brainwork of yours to look into some FACTS.
I do find your rants, while completely lacking in facts, evidence, or links, mildly entertaining. However, you're also not using your brainwork to look at the topic in a rational, fact and evidence based light. So, I'm going bid you good day and let you rant on until you sort out your anger issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamsawyer1763 - I wish we still had actual investigative journalists who could look into the people pushing Russian talking points or parroting Russian propaganda, like that kooky Pakistani "Republican" US presidential candidate, whatever his name is, and see if they're genuinely just being contrary to the sensible or if they're receiving money from Russia or an intermediary. It damn sure isn't in the West's interests, Europe or the USA, to not give Ukraine everything they need to make Ukraine untenable for Russia and end the war.
In particular, aid to Ukraine from the USA, which is given as a loan not a "gift", is both fueling the US economy and defense industry jobs program and updating our arsenal and reducing the number of vehicles sitting in storage collecting dust.
Aid to Ukraine, both military and humanitarian, is a win for everyone except Russia and Russia's cheerleaders in the West.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The lack of a framework or timeline for NATO membership for Ukraine is disappointing. It's doubly so when the NATO chief stands up tries to sell Ukraine some BS sprayed with rose perfume.
The only reason we're having this discussion is because in 1992, Ukraine was told, "someday".
The Russians arrived before "someday". Now, as Ukraine is spending the blood to fight a NATO enemy, NATO is telling Ukraine the same thing, "someday".
Still worse, the only reason Ukraine wasn't offered NATO membership was as an unofficial appeasement to Russia, an appeasement that we foolishly thought would "avoid provoking" Russia and prevent an invasion of Ukraine.
NATO was and is genuinely thinking with #RussianLogic
That said, the NATO charter would have to be modified or some technicality made to allow Ukraine to join NATO before the war is over and Ukraine liberated its territory.
The latter is actually the easier objective. Putin's Russia could simply refuse to ever sign a peace treaty, the way North and South Korea are still at war with merely an armistice cease fire.
Of course, NATO could use the same "pretend with words" that Putin does. Ukraine simply declare the war over, hostilities ceased, once their territory is liberated.
1
-
The argument that "NATO would've...", while true, is entirely irrelevant theory crafting. Russia and NATO wouldn't be fighting a conventional war.
Sure, NATO would drive to Moscow in a couple weeks. But, Russia would definitely launch it's deterrent, probably a warning shot into the north Atlantic, just to get the attention of governments on both sides of the pond, at the very first incursion of NATO forces on Russian soil.
Yes, in the event Russia did allow a conventional war, NATO would devote intense aerial resources to try and cleanse the sky of Russian jets as well as cleanse the ground of Russian air defenses (gbad).
It would be a very expensive fight. We lost planes doing that in the opening stages of Iraq 1 and Saddam had a pittance of the volume of ground based air defenses that Russia does and they had no significant air force, which Russia still does. Sure, it's not a numerical match for NATO, but in order to fight the Russian aircraft, NATO aircraft would have to deal with Russian gbad.
Yes, air superiority would be gained. Yes, a lot of NATO aircraft and pilots would be lost doing it. Yes, pushed into a corner, where their sovereignty was ACTUALLY existentially threatened, Russia would launch their nuclear deterrent and end the war immediately by ending civilization as we know it.
That's part of the reason, I suspect, that aid has been trickling up instead of going all in at the beginning.
Besides allowing Russia plenty of off ramps to withdraw, it's allowed managing of Russia's threat response, and allowed the West to dismantle the Russian military threat the same way as boiling a frog (gradually, keeping Russia involved in the fight because Putin is foolish and won't admit defeat until he has nobody left willing to follow his orders).
1
-
Storm Shadow has taken over the role performed by HIMARS in the Kherson and Kharkiv offensives for disrupting supply and command chains.
The issue is that it takes time to clear built up defenses while artillery is raining on the Ukrainians.
Remember, Russia established the type, range, quality, and sheer number of ground based air defenses exactly to counter NATOs superior quality and number of aircraft and reliance on air superiority.
It's something the US simply hasn't had to deal with in any of our invasioneering. The fact that Ukraine has been able to also keep the Russian air force at bay, since the beginning, is a testament to how effective Russian (or Soviet) gbad actually is at doing what it was designed to do. The world's "2nd strongest military" couldn't achieve air superiority over a poor, generally poorly equipped neighbor that happened to have a lot of inherited Soviet era gbad.
Remember, when it comes to Russian air defenses, Turkey was willing to lose out on the opportunity to purchase F35 when it bought gbad from Russia because it valued the Russian gbad systems so much.
There will be a breakthrough as Russian units run low on supply and become combat ineffective from losses that can't be easily replaced. Kharkiv took 5 weeks of hard fighting before Russian commanders, probably against Putin's wishes, ordered the withdrawal from Kharkiv in effort to prevent all those troops from being lost at a point when mobilization wasn't yet able to flush thousands of new, untrained, ill equipped mobiliki into stop gap filler in Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Silver_Prussian OK, you're statements were questionable until you said Russia isn't using the T-64.
Last year, Russia began refurbishing everything it had in storage, including T-64, T-62, and even T-55 tanks. Initially, these were used as short range artillery to supplement the Russian artillery which was both shooting out their barrels, being destroyed as a priority, as well as having ammunition shortage before the NK ammunition began arriving in Russia.
You speak about the type of armor the T-72 has without regards to the aforementioned quality concerns related to corruption.
If the normal steel armor is cheaper than the laminate insert composite steel armor, you can be guaranteed that "Soviet spec" tanks are also just steel instead of laminate. Corruption isn't anything new in the Russian system. Military and political advancement was desired because it afforded more opportunities to offset personal income by corruption.
The government gives the factory X Rubles to build tanks with laminate armor. The factory owner instead orders steel turrets from the armor manufacturer and pays him for "Vranye" (вранье or the concept of lies, "I know that you know I'm lying but we'll pretend I'm not and then everything is OK"). The steel turrets go on the tank, it's certified by someone else who takes a payoff and the tank is up to spec.
The T-90 is very rare and only become more so as the ones Russia had at the beginning of the war have mostly been lost. Perun channel has an episode covering this and erasing the fallacy that Russia has been saving its best equipment (like the T-90).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, Trump's reelection shows first how not "post racial" we are and second, how not ready for a female president we are.
The woke phenomenon definitely helped Trump as people fed up with "diversity" (which is a form of racism) were able to turn their frustration or anger into action. A black female had zero chance against Trump and the Democratic party was too high on their own wokeness to see the truth.
Merit is one thing, forced diversity without regard to merit is an entirely different thing and just as insidious as slavery....because it punishes and limits if you're the wrong gender and color (in this case, male and white).
Two wrongs definitely don't make a right and Trump's reelection, a 3rd wrong, was testament to that.
Worse, the Democratic party is STILL befuddled and has no idea how to counter Trump and MAGA. All democrats know is race and diversity and "equality" (quotes used because forcing minorities up simply based on gender or color is NOT equality).
Further, the democrats have their own attack on the Constitution, with their constant push against the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms). If anything, Trump's desire to be the next Lukashenko or Putin shows exactly why the 2nd Amendment is there and why it's so important to our very young country.
Democrats need to stop attacking the Constitution. Again, using MAGA logic of "Well, Trump is attacking the Constitution" won't get the democrats ahead.
So, Republicans are scared of MAGA and democrats are clueless about how to counter MAGA and how to separate themselves from the Democratic party's woke and anti constitutional agenda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There is no safety and no security in the appeasement of evil... He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong."
-President Ronald Reagan (Republican), USA. 1986
Modern "Republicans" in the US have lost their way and suffer from weak and timid leadership who care more about politicking and weaponizing political divisiveness for their own personal benefit than doing the right thing.
Ronald Reagan, a two term Republican president, defeated the Soviet Union without firing a single shot or placing a single American in harm's way.
He defeated the Soviet Union by spending money.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, most former Soviet states or Warsaw Pact countries voted to be independent of Russia. Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbas regions voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia.
Unlike other countries that were afforded NATO protection from the inevitable return of Russia looking to rebuild its empire, Ukraine (and Georgia) were told "someday" and not offered NATO protection as an appeasement to Russia (who, ironically, is a signatory of the Budapest Memorandum that guarantees Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear deterrent).
The United States, and NATO, waved a red flag in front of an angry, wounded bull when he we left Ukraine to fend for itself after we defeated their oppressor and turned our backs on their future security in the early 90s.
I applaud Democratic president Biden for carrying on Republican presidential tradition, doing the right thing in the face of evil, and picking up the ball that previous presidents had dropped.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Krompir98 - America went to war because American was attacked.
Yes, our foolish leader, Dubya, and demanded raw Intel that led him to incorrectly believe, with President Cheney's support) that Iraq had WMD. Iraq 2 is definitely not a proud American moment, especially considering Iraq is now buddies with Iran.
However, in regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, it was a land grab by Putin. Ethnic Russians in Ukraine weren't persecuted. Even after the 2014 invasion, there was merely disdain for Russians who Ukrainians viewed as the cause of the troubles. I have had this explained to me by an ethnic Russian friend who fled Donetsk before the 2014 invasion and who's grandmother was killed in shelling by foreign "separatists" as they drove the Ukrainian defenders out.
Between 2014 and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine had not been bombing, shelling, or attacking eastern separatist regions. Again, this is explained to me by the friend who still has family in the Donbas region.
Putin knew full well that ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine were not under attack. Russia itself was not under attack. Ukraine had an interest in joining the EU, but not in joining NATO and, knowing it would destabilize the region, NATO had no interest in Ukraine joining.
Putin's current invasion of Ukraine is based almost entirely on the same reason as the 2014 invasion, a land grab. Putin had said that he doesn't view Ukraine as a country but as a breakaway part of the Soviet Era Russian state. Putin is basically living in 1985 and certainly disregarding history from 1989 on.
The other reason Putin can use to justify his invasion is the Ukraine dammed a canal carrying water into Crimea, which Russia also stole in their 2014 land grab invasion. Russia threatened military action if Ukraine didn't turn the water back on. Ukraine told Russia the water would be turned back on if Russia left Ukrainian soil.
Again, this problem is ENTIRELY of Russian making because RUSSIA INVADED Ukraine in 2014 solely as a land grab.
1
-
1
-
@theshield1613 - The US invaded Afghanistan because we were attacked by Taliban which was supported by the Afghanistan government.
I agree that Iraq 2 was entirely a mistake and Dubya's poor decision making along with intelligence officials providing him with raw Intel, as he requested, without vetting the intel.
However, the catalyst for the attack and Dubya's heightened idiotic desicion still stemmed from the terror attacks on the US. Obviously, if Iraq did have WMD, we didn't want the Taliban or sympathizers getting it.
Ukraine situation is entirely Putin's doing. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine to "protect Russian people". Those people were not being persecuted.
Ok, I could accept a similar argument, at that point, that Putin received bad intel, except that Ukraine borders Russia and simply peeking into the region would show there was no persecution of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. I have a Russian friend who lived in Donetsk until she fled the 2014 invasion.
Unlike Ukraine and Russia, Iraq is thousands of miles away and was closed to the United States for casual view.
Russia's 2014 invasion was a land grab. Putin has said he doesn't consider Ukraine to be a country.
Now, the current invasion has no possible viable reason. Ukraine has not been attacking the Russian held "separatist" regions. Everyone on both sides of the front line knows this. That's why Russia was designing false flag propaganda to use as a pretext for the invasion.
Russia wasn't attacked. Ethnic Russians in Ukraine weren't attacked. Russia's current invasion is again a continuation of the 2014 land grab invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7:55 fact check, every MOS has some training required. You're confusing yourself here. The SEAL dropout will be assigned an MOS and get sent to that MOS training. As is true with every branch, just because you got trained in something, doesn't mean you will be doing that if some other billet needs filled.
Also, what you describe is mostly avoidable if guys like the one you mentioned aren't idiots.
Talk to recruiter, take ASVAB, choose desired MOS from whatever your ASVAB allows, enlist, go to basic, go to MOS school, go to fleet unit, begin applying for SEAL selection, hope that you get accepted and your unit releases you, hope you don't break in SEAL selection, return to your previous MOS or billet if you do. Now, in this path, SEAL selection process isn't guaranteed, but an MOS school of the recruit's choosing is guaranteed.
The idiot path, sounds like what your guy took, is: talk to recruiter, choose SEAL selection, graduate basic training, go to SEAL selection, hope you don't break mentally or physically, become one of the 80% or more that do break, go to the MOS of the Navy's choosing, whine like a bitch for 6 years.
Basically, anyone who goes the 2nd, idiot route, and doesn't make the cut at SEAL selection and then sets about complaining instead of busting their ass to make the most of the shit job they got and try to reapply for SEAL selection or at least cross train into some better MOS is basically PROVING that they had no business trying to be a SEAL.
Interesting note, it may have been Jocko Willink in 1 of his interviews who recalled first arriving at his SEAL unit. He's proud of himself and feels like he's accomplished something. The senior NCO he's reporting to reminds him that everyone there has been through what he has...and, nobody cares. Willink wasn't special AND that was yesterday. It's what you do today and tomorrow that matter.
This last point gets back to the guy you mentioned. Yesterday he failed SEAL selection and got a crappy MOS. What did he do today? He whined about it. Enough said. Do your 6 years, like everyone else who's just there for GI Bill or to get out of their small town, and get over himself.
I agree that your research was insufficient for this article. I knew 2 navy corpsmen who washed out of SEAL training due to injury and went right back to the unit they came from, one doing his rounds at the Navy Hospital wearing a robo-boot for a foot injury. As other commenters have pointed out, most SEAL candidates come from active duty personnel that have already been to MOS school and already been serving in the fleet before applying for SEAL selection. Fewer people are new recruits that signed up to go straight into the SEAL selection process after basic training. From what I recall, recruiters had a fairly limited number of slots for these straight to SEAL selection new recruits.
The brand new recruits have no MOS. So, of course they are going to be assigned to an MOS that the navy needs filling. They chose "SEAL" as their MOS at the recruiter and gave up the chance to choose something else in exchange for the guarantee to go to SEAL selection. So, the Navy gets to choose. The recruit made that decision. Having been dropped from SEAL training, they'll be stuck wherever the Navy needs them for 6 years. It's called "haze grey and underway". They knew that when they chose SEAL selection instead of an actual MOS.
Note, normal enlistment can be 4 years, but recruits who REALLY want to roll the dice and go straight to SEAL selection after basic training will have to sign up for 6 years (last I'd heard).
As far as these guys who thought they could beat the odds go, they are getting the same jobs as other Navy personnel. Somebody has to do the crap jobs. Usually it will be people with low ASVAB scores, people with a really devious recruiter who needs to make his quota, or people who really just want out of their small town NOW and don't care to wait for a better job to be open for recruiting.
Getting at this point, I'm curious what the ASVAB score of the guy in your example was. If it was low, he may have been getting one of the jobs his score qualified him for. Sure, he was a talented athlete, but that doesn't mean he could take a test well or took the test seriously since "he was going to be a SEAL" in his mind.
Also, SEAL selection isn't "safe".
"Millennial Think" is the idea that if I'm allowed to do something, it must be safe. Padded playgrounds, helicopter moms, and safe spaces taught a generation that if they can do a thing, it's safe. Unfortunately, millennial think has spread across all generations, now. However, there's just inherent danger in things like landing on a rocky beach, at night, and in surf in a RIB.
Incidentally, getting hurt ISN'T an automatic drop. Depending on the injury and time spent in training or selection, the SEAL candidate can be "recycled" into the next class. For some, getting injured in addition to the mental and physical challenges they'd endured is enough to convince them to quit and choose to not be recycled.
I suspect this may be what happened with the example story Paul uses. The guy got hurt. He was given the choice to heal and go through selection again. He then decided to quit instead of put up with hell again from the beginning. So, in such a situation, the SEAL candidate was injured AND QUIT. Of course, saying that they dropped him because he was injured might be an easier pill for to swallow than telling people he was injured and quit.
I'm curious if Paul, being army, confers some bias in this story with its anti-Navy slant. I've also noticed in a few other instances where Paul tries to cover topics out of his wheelhouse, the vid is poorly researched, poorly presented, or presented with bias. I respect Paul's take on infantry combat, because that's what he did and he's still alive.
However, being a combat vet isn't necessarily a qualification for being a good journalist, researcher, or expert on recruiting and training process and issues in other branches of the service.
Remember kids, if you don't want to risk being haze grey and underway, after dropping out of SEAL selection, enlist with 4 to 6 year contract in an actual MOS that appeals to you and then begin applying to SEAL selection!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrtoonami1782 You're right, not fighting and avoiding violence or danger might be the safe and sane choice. However, it's also not an option in some situations.
Ukraine is currently in that situation where safety, not fighting, isn't a choice.
Unfortunately JustTooHonest, in a comment below, points out the truth of the matter for Ukrainians and their situation.
They actually ARE in a genuine life and death situation and still THEY have people unhappy with the new mobilization or draft (I'm not sure of the details).
People in Ukraine don't have a choice, even if they want to choose not to fight. They are either going to choose to fight for Ukraine against Russia or, if they choose not to fight and Russia prevails, they will be FORCED by Russia to fight in Russia's inevitable next campaign (likely against Maldova or Estonia).
This is important to realize, both that most people don't have an interest in war or fighting in a war, and that it's not always a choice.
This is important to realize because if Russia is victorious in Ukraine, people in other European countries are going to lose the choice when Russia comes rolling in.
Again, it's not a matter of, "if we don't fight, we'll just be living under Russian rule." It's that Russia will force conscript or press gang every able bodied Ukrainian male to fight in their next campaign. This already happened in Luhansk and Donetsk. It's not something I'm speculating about. It's a certainty.
So, the same thing happens to the next European country. Except, once Russia gets to the Baltics or Poland, it's a NATO issue and NATO countries lose the choice of whether to fight.
Sure, people in those countries or the alliance members can choose not to fight. However, if enough make that choice, they'll end up conscripted into the Russian war machine and forced to fight the next county in line.
The United States has the luxury of being insulated by 2 oceans. Europe doesn't and every European will either choose to fight or choose to be forced to fight.
It's something that we've read in history books and are all aware of. Germany forced conquered people to fight or die as slave labor, starved.
We read it in a history book and our minds can't fathom that history coming to life again. That's the same thing that people thought in the runup to WWII, we had WWI as history so it can't be happening again.
That led to appeasement. Appeasement led to Germany getting a bigger head start.
Putin had begun a Russian invasion of Europe. Everyone in Europe will lose the choice of whether they will fight...if Ukraine loses its fight for freedom from Russian oppression.
This is why its critical that the free world, West, NATO, whatever we want to call ourselves, wake up and send every bit of equipment to Ukraine that they need. Otherwise war will eventually come for all of us.
It may take longer because of distance, but war will even come to America, eventually, if Russia is able to secure the resources and slave labor and conscript army of Europe.
If 90% of the population doesn't want to fight, at least 90% of the population should demand military aid be sent to Ukraine in mass quantities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:35 the Spanish example is interesting because there was a Spanish Empire.
However, according to #RussianLogic, Spain actually belongs to and is rightfully a part of Italy because Spain was once a part of the Roman Empire.
Ukraine and Russia might be neighbors, but they are every bit as different as Spain and Italy with different languages and cultures and national history.
I have a friend in Ukraine who is Russian speaking and fled Donetsk during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. She moved to another area Ina more western city where she was able to continue speaking Russian.
Once February 24th, 2022 happened, she denounced her Russian heritage, calling them barbarians and began referring to herself as a proud Ukrainian.
What was a surprise to me was that as she had to now start learning Ukrainian, that Ukrainian is a very different language than Russian. They use a similar alphabet, but it's like English and French. You may recognize the alphabet but the words are different.
Ukraine was never culturally or linguistically a part of Russia. Ukraine had been twice subjugated by Russian imperialism.
Which brings us back to Spain being a part of Italy, if we're using #RussianLogic and saying that if a place had been conquered by an empire, it was forever part of that empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, this will sound harsh, but what I say is entirely true. People treat you the way you allow them to.
"Beautiful" people look in the mirror and notice things "wrong" with themselves, just the way you do in the start of the video. It's part of human nature to have insecurities. You either get trapped by them or you figure out how to move past the insecurities.
Before you make another whiny video, a watch EVERY video on this YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/QcOo3EC2Sik
You're ugly? So what. Learn how to get out of your own head. Want to be attractive to girls? Learn how attractiveness really works. Looks aren't top of the list. Look around. You see attractive girls with fat or ugly guys all the time.
You spent 7 years with a girl because you thought she was your only option.
Stop thinking about your appearance and work on being a man. Learn how to act like a man (alpha male) instead of a weak beta male bitch.
Society and media have brainwashed boys and weak minded men about what it means to be a "good boyfriend" or "good catch".
Go watch EVERY video from RSD Tyler, RSDfreetour. Learn that it's you screwing yourself up by buying into the bullshit that so many people have been feeding you all your life. They sold you bullshit and you paid high price for it! RSD Tyler is ugly and you will think he's handsome because he doesn't care what you think it. So, it doesn't matter because you'll see him by his energy, attitude and how he acts. And, he dates MANY girls.
Learn how to get out of your own head.
The reason you are "ugly" is because you act needy, you chase people's attention and you freely give validation (compliments). Doing these things makes you More unattractive than your physical appearance.
Nobody wanted to write to you on the website you mention because you act needy. Girls are like credit. You must prove to them that you don't need them before you can get them.
Watch EVERY video on the channel I linked. You need to learn how to think. If you don't, you could be the most beautiful person ever, but the minute you open your mouth, you will appear ugly!
Watch those videos. Learn how to fix your mind, remove the toxic thinking! But, remember, it is easier to fail than succeed. Success REQUIRES ACTION. Sitting at home complaining is ILLUSION of action. Sitting at home complaining is INACTION.
Failure is easy. Inaction requires no effort. Action requires effort. Success requires action. DECIDE to act. Commit to success.
You want a genuine compliment? You've got a cool accent and good voice. But, you probably think you sound bad. Don't you? My opinion of you doesn't matter if your own negative opinion disagrees with my positive opinion.
Do you see the problem with that? NOBODY can give you a compliment because YOU won't allow it!!
RSD Max https://www.youtube.com/user/RSD Maximilian also has a cool accent, is an introvert, looked strange and is now very successful in dating. You won't believe that from just seeing and hearing him. So watch all his videos. LEARN!! Hell, you can get a free phone consultation with RSD (real social dynamics). Watch a recent video from RSDMax to find a link for it in the description of video.
If you don't contact RSD for the consultation AND watch EVERY video, then you are not here to improve. If you don't watch those videos, you're only here seeking comfort and validation from other people with negative and toxic thinking.
Remember, sitting there thinking everything is against you is fucking easy. Getting out of your own toxic though fog and DOING something is difficult. If you aren't willing to take action and do something to heal your past and improve your future, then you deserve to be ugly and lonely.
You see the easy way out I just gave you? It's a trick. A test. You probably said, "But, I am ugly. I do deserve to be alone." Thinking that is easy. It requires no action or effort or risk of failure.
Decided to improve your mindset and attitude. Take action to improve these. Be afraid to fail. Then, you realize failure is actually learning. Learning is a part of improving.
Go watch the RSD videos! People only treat you the way you allow them to! Take action to learn how to not invite or accept toxic, unhealthy treatment from people. Learn how to have and spread positive energy. You'll realize you can overcome your looks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:18 exactly. Cares act was a bank bailout,again.
America is great, but it damn sure isn't perfect. The very wealthy allow the working class to have enough HOPE that they can work towards upper socioeconomic mobility.
Meanwhile, all that work the working class is doing mainly benefits those very wealthy, who earn money from businesses being profitable.
Also, "working class" is actually anyone who is earning money from other-than-investments.
So, most people, even if they think they are comfortable, are still at the mercy of the very wealthy who don't need to work.
Basically, this small business paycheck protection act was another bailout for banks. The bill uses "small" businesses as proxies to support the banks that are owed money by the banks who are managing the cares applications.
And, now for some sarcasm:
Louis, you greedy beggar! How much time did YOU spend golfing and fine dining with Chase executives last year??
How much did you contribute to campaign funds of politicians who didn't eliminate large, publicly traded businesses as eligible for small business support loans??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:40 Ryan, you're still making the mistake of thinking about the Russian army in terms of what you know from your time in the US Army. It's not difficult to find a video of a Russian tank column traveling too close and with all guns pointing forward. This was happening even during the first months, before tank crews were getting supplemented by new, inexperienced reservists. Russian tanks don't have a GPS, possibly don't even have a working radio, and likely only the lead tank even has a map (remember, Russia was playing a disinformation game against their own troops!).
So, two things are going on that promoted Russian tanks to convoy too close. First, human nature. Without proper training to break human nature, the instinct is to get closer together when attacked. Second, if you don't have a map or GPS and aren't sure where you're going or how to get there but you know if you get lost someone will blow you up, you're going to want stay close enough to the tank in front so you don't get lost or left behind.
Since the actually trained units have been decimated and refreshed by inexperienced reservists or new recruits, the likelihood of seeing Russian tanks doing stupid shit that wouldn't be tolerated in a western military has only increased.
It's wise to not underestimate an opponent. However, Russian tank crews have been caught in actual video behaving the way they are depicted in the game scenario.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tldr, F-16 is similar in practical capability to the Mig-29 that Ukraine already has and which Ukraine can't use without risking loss to Russian surface to air missiles.
If Ukraine doesn't receive sufficient long range fires to significantly thin out Russian air defenses, Russia WILL shoot down F-16. F-16 is virtually the same in capability as the Mig-29, which Russia has no problem shooting down. However, very few Ukrainian aircraft are shot down by Russian aircraft.
Air to air engagements are limited to the Russian jets lobbing R37 missiles, which were designed to shoot down the B52 stratofortress bomber, from over 100km away and hoping the Ukrainian doesn't evade. This usually results in the Ukrainian aborting their mission since they know they're being targeted (the A50 AWACS has the capability to guide S400 missiles from ground launched SAM sites and it's likely that an A50 vectored the Russian jet to attack in the first place - a big reason knocking out A50 is a huge priority).
Ground based air defenses (GBAD) are numerous on both sides. Russia built up a vast stockpile of it and focused on development in light of the fact that the Soviets, let alone Russia, couldn't keep up the US in terms of numbers of aircraft. It's GBAD that is shooting down most of the aircraft that have been lost on both sides.
There's no "dogfighting". Russian engagement range is longer than Ukraine's and F-16 won't solve that. The AIM 120 AMRAAM that the F-16 carries has about the same range as the R27 that Ukraine's Mig 29s carry (about 50km). Russian aircraft are doing "close air support" from 50km behind the front line by dropping glide bombs from very high altitude. To engage those aircraft, F-16 would have to fly into range of Russian GBAD, and F-16 would fair no better than the Mig 29 in surviving.
Only the newest AIM 120 variant that is in testing and not deployed to USAF squadrons yet has comparable range. Unfortunately, Ukraine needed the Gripen fighter, not the F-16. Gripen can carry the British Meteor missile which has comparable range to the R37 of 150km with better performance. Gripen can also carry the Storm Shadow. F-16 can't use either critical weapon, although one set of pylons might be capable of being modified to carry Storm Shadow.
F-16 will primarily be a ground attack platform. It will continue the job of long range "close air support" that both sides are doing with glide bombs as well as hunting Russian radar with HARM missiles. If Ukraine gets the Harpoon anti ship missile, F-16 may assist in Black Sea Bingo.
In the 1990s Gulf War, the first thing the US and coalition did was launch cruise missiles from everything that could carry them, including submarines, at Saddam's GBAD, radar, and C3 (command, control, communication) facilities while backing that up with aircraft also targeting those same assets to make skies safer to operate in.
Russia has more, newer, and more capable systems than Saddam did 30 years ago, including the excellent S400 long range and Pantsir medium range systems (Pantsir is like a medium range Patriot. Several radar and launch vehicles can integrate and launchers with radar off, making them invisible to HARM missiles, can fire at Ukrainian jets). Add in IR manpads, S300, and whatever else Russia is using and F-16 will get decimated.
That is, unless they are used very sparingly (and having limited effectiveness), very far behind the front line, or unless Ukraine receives sufficient long range fires (Storm Shadow, SCALP, GLSDB, ATACMS, Taurus - the latter 2 the US and Germany are reluctant to send), combined with drones, artillery, HIMARS, and F-16 and other Ukrainian aircraft focusing on a large scale attack on known Russian GBAD, radar, C3 locations.
Without being able to thin out the GBAD, F-16 will be as impactful as Abrams or Leopard 2. It will be nice to have and situationally useful but overall not having a significant impact on the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThePi314Man - as a trucker, I'm very unsympathetic to railworker whining. They're well compensated, coddled and spoiled compared to most truck drivers. As I indicated in another comment, truckers actually work close to an 80 hour week, of which about 55 are paid.
When rail workers run out of DOT work time, they're picked up, taken to a motel, and paid for the entire time, even the time spent in the motel on break.
Trucker runs out of DOT time, he's SoL and parks where can whether there's services there (food, bathroom) or not. Hopefully the day traffic messss up a run you have to park where they're aren't any services wasn't the day your groceries ran out.
Hopefully, your truck doesn't get hooked up by a tow truck (who demands a $300 ransom as part of kick back scheme with whichever shop owner in the grocery shopping center lot that called him) when you're in the grocery store.
1
-
@exoticnoise420 - getting paid by the mile is what I'm talk. That mileage pay doesn't account for anything extra that a driver has to do. If you did factor that extra time into a mileage pay compared to work time, you'd be looking at something that gets down to $10 to $15 per hour.
Poor compensation, whether it's mileage, hourly, or other pay type is a big industry problem.
The irony is that companies top concerns are driver recruiting, driver shortage, and driver retention (in that bass akwards order) while driver top concerns are pay, parking availability, and DOT hours of service.
(a note on the last item, drivers actually list electronic logs above hours of service, but complaints about e logs are a symptom of and related to hours of service regulations and pay more than they are a separate item, in reality).
So, the irony is that companies think there's a driver shortage (there isn't) and that they need to focus on recruiting (because of high turnover, typically over 100% annually). Meanwhile, drivers are listing pay as their top concern.
Bean counters and company management look at and focus on certain columns in the spreadsheet instead of looking at the bigger picture. This leads companies to step over a dollar to pick up a dime.
As far as leaving the equipment unattended to go do something, in most places, that's a good way for a company driver to get fired or an independent to have trouble getting more business from that customer or broker. It's not practical and blocking a dock tends to anger customers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justaguy1679 - yup, there's not widespread testing, so we don't even know the actual extent. But, estimates can be extrapolated from China and Italy's numbers.
We'll be at 300k by next weekend.
The small minded, selfish people who think "it's just a bad, 2 week long flu" (as if 2 weeks of fever and aches sounds fun), don't realize that with normal flu strains people don't get sick and show up to the hospital all at once, relatively.
With 300k sick (a small % of 335 million population), 20% will end up severe enough to need hospital care. That's 60k people needing a hospital bed, all at once.
The virus doubles every 3 days. So, that 300k and 60k goes up real quick. Further, people are hospitalized for 14 to 30 days with complications of covid19.
So, as is happening to Italy, if you are seriously ill in a later stage, you don't get a hospital bed because people who got seriously sick a month earlier are STILL taking up a bed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Orville does a good job of organic diversity: male, female, blue, green, mono-sex, ai, etc. The character is primary and color, sex, or alien origin is secondary.
Pandering, like with Brie pandering to black people, is offensive to the people being pandered to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gatekeeper201 this dog may very well be a well behaved dog. Grooming is an entirely different thing. The only way to train a dog through it would be to have the same equipment in the same type of environment as the groomer. If people could do that...had that equipment and setup, they wouldn't be going to the groomer.
My dog is happy getting wet and playing in the rain. She's fine being touched everywhere. She obeys basic commands (sit, down, stand, stay) just fine.
Today, at the groomers, I'm up front talking to the manager about other dog things and hear my girl start whining whimpering in the bath. During the dry, she starts a "Waaaa Waaaa Waaaa" vocalization that I've never even heard before. I asked the manager if that was my dog. He went, checked, and reported that it was. Finally, the girl comes out and says my dog won't stay on the table and asks if I'll help calm her when she's doing the drying.
My dog knows "up" and will 100% obey, finding a nearby thing to jump up onto or jump on me if nothing else available. It took a cycle of up (no response), sit, up (no response), sit, and up to finally get her jump up on the table (she wouldn't let me pick her up even though I can pick her up any other time and she even has a command to stay still while I pick her up).
It took me holding her tight and changing how I was restraining her to allow the girl to dry the dog.
Mind you, my dog is OK with me running the blow dryer on my beard, she's OK with aircraft passing close overhead, OK sticking her out the window into the rushing wind, OK with firetruck sirens, etc.
The dog was losing her mind with the blow dryer today.
Again, the only way to train a dog to do something or "to behave" as you put it is to DO the thing. If I could do that training, I wouldn't need to go to the groomer.
It's a bit silly to say that this dog isn't well behaved based on the dog being in a situation that it doesn't like or is afraid of.
Even the manager had commented on how well behaved my dog was...except when in the bath or on the drying table, which are unique, unusual situations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:11 re people assuming Putin wants a ceasefire.
Only someone ignorant of the Russian mindset would think Putin wants a ceasefire. Putin only understands strength and force. Everyone in the West was very weak in 2014, with Bronco Bama making the same mistake Trump is now making, prioritizing a "Russian Reset" over global stability. Other Western leaders have been self deterring and appeasement minded, hoping Putin would eventually take an available "off ramp" before Putin made the irreversible step of the sham referenda to annex parts of Ukraine.
Only the Baltics have been consistently very strong in trying to push Europe and the US to stop what is not an invasion of Ukraine but, rather, the first stepping stone in an invasion of Europe. The Baltic states know they're next and that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine it's because the West, Europe, the USA, and NATO ARE actually weak (in mind even if strong in military and economy).
Western leaders continually acting weak ENCOURAGES Putin to continue fighting and investing further into his sunk cost fallacy, Ukraine.
As long as Western democracies hem and haw about whether to get serious and stop Putin's invasion of Europe, Putin will continue to see this as weakness and encouragement.
Trump giving Putin everything he asks for ALSO won't lead to a cessation of war in Europe. Again, if you give Putin something when he knows he deserves nothing, Putin understands this benevolent and magnanimous gesture from Trump as supreme weakness and will simply continue to demand MORE.
Putin: "OK, Trump. Just let me finish in Ukraine...and then I'll retake the Baltics. THEN I'll be done, really. Pinky promise!"
Those Russian missiles and drones that have landed in Europe (Poland) or flown through NATO airspace unopposed were more proof for Putin that NATO will not respond to Article 5 and help smaller members.
Anyone who thinks Putin wants a ceasefire before he's re-conquered AT LEAST everything the Soviet Union held, is ignorant, naive, or a fool.
1
-
1
-
@javierortiz5765 - You're right about cost issues and bang for buck. This reply ended up being long because you seem reasonable and I wanted to open your eyes to some things you're may not have considered. Hopefully, you give it a read and the YouTube thought police don't remove it.
You're right on cost, simplicity of production, ease of use, bang for the buck, and effectiveness against lack of modern countermeasures.
However, drones can't do what tanks or other crewed armored vehicles can do. The countries that can afford to will continue to build them. In the future, we'll have drone tanks, armored vehicles lacking human crew. Remote control will probably be offset by supplemental independent ai in the not so distant future for all drones.
A flying drone, even one carrying a big artillery shell just can't do what an armored vehicle can do as far as infantry support and anti armor warfare.
As a soldier on the ground, you're unlikely to be able to take cover behind a flying drone. You're unlikely to be moved to the battlefield by a flying drone. You're unlikely to be medevac'd by a flying drone. (While drones could do the latter with sufficient payload, there's no room for medics to stabilize and boy would it be a bummer to fall out of the sky as the drone gets jammed or blown up as a missile or other drone finds it and knocks it down.)
For all the jobs you need an armored vehicle for...you need an armored vehicle. If you're sending out troop transports and medevac vehicles, you're going to want to send tanks with them to protect from (or assault) hardened infantry positions or other armored vehicles.
This last point gets back to The Chieftain's comment about tanks being obsolete unless the other guy has one.
Besides not considering that armored land vehicles are required for things that an aerial drone just can't do, especially related to infantry operations and support thereof, in your reply, you're still not acknowledging the fact that jamming systems exist and have been an obstacle for both sides in the Ukraine war. While already being a problem (again, Perun channel has a good vid on drones!), these systems are in their infancy.
You can't jam a tank. If I have a tank and a drone jammer and you have drones but no tank, I win.
Yes, there are other anti tank systems, like man portable missiles or recoil less guns. However, there are counters to infantry, like armored fighting vehicles.
In the near future there are going to be laser weapons that are capable of knocking out aerial drones as well as directional jamming systems and probably even RF (radio frequency) or EMP-like countermeasures that armored vehicles will launch similarly to how they can launch IR dazzling smoke to confuse or hide from anti armor missiles.
Essentially, the armored unit would have a dedicated jamming vehicle in the formation (similar to what the formerly retired German Gepard and retired Soviet ZSU 23-4 Shilka was for in the age of low altitude aircraft threats (ironic considering we're once again in an era of low altitude aircraft threats!). This vehicle will knock out most drones attempting to attack by putting out enough RF energy to either block communication with the operator or outright fry or disable the electronic equipment that makes the drone work. In the near term, this vehicle could be a pick up truck, HMMV, or armored vehicle retrofitted with the system. Later, specific vehicles will be designed that will probably also include the "laser" systems (directed energy weapons, which are already a thing) and EMP "shotguns" as well as search radar to have early warning for the tactical armored unit (several tanks and infantry fighting vehicles).
This will be a system that will fire a spread of either RF generators to get the RF signal energy close enough to incoming drones far enough away that they won't be close enough to do damage if they crash with armed artillery size explosives or actual EMP devices that will scatter over an area of the sky where drones are coming from and emit an electro magnetic pulse that will knock out drones hardened to RF jamming. These systems might also include small explosive projectiles akin to "baby flak" that will physically knock drones out as if you went skeet shooting at the local gun club (well, skeet shooting with explosive shotgun shells).
Finally, some version of some of these anti drone systems will be retrofitted to existing vehicles and designed into new vehicles that will give an armored maneuver unit individual as well as group protection.
What you're seeing in Ukraine is that it's much cheaper and quicker to develop and get drones into action on the battlefield. Don't think for a second that the US and China aren't observing the potency of aerial drones and developing countermeasures against them.
In a way, Ukraine isn't a "modern" battlefield. Russia entered the war without secured radio communications. They didn't use jammers in the early days because they created enough interference to block their own equipment (thus anti aircraft vehicles getting popped by TB 2 drones).
Both sides have since had a lot of success with drones, but neither side has been spending resources to develop countermeasures against drones. Ukraine doesn't have the resources and Russia is too busy refurbishing tanks from the 1960s and trying to produce Su 34 fighter bombers faster than mobile patriot systems can destroy them.
Current countermeasures include nets, shotguns, jammers, cloth that blends in with night vision or blocks heat, and this sort of low tech countermeasures.
As countermeasures improve, drones will become less successful. As they become less successful, more will be needed and they will become more expensive as they'll need to be hardened against evolving countermeasures.
That's not happening in Ukraine because both Russia and Ukraine are going for a churn more drones out race. Countries that aren't fighting and have tech resources, like the US and China are most certainly developing countermeasures to drones beyond the limited and fairly low tech counters seen in Ukraine.
So, if I have a tank, an IFV, infantry, and an anti-drone system and you just have drones, infantry, and anti-drone systems... I win because of the "obsolete" armor.
Another way of looking at aerial drones vs armor is that drones are like a low skill floor with a low skill ceiling. Easy to produce, easy to use, and easy to master, but with limitations that show up early.
Anti drone tech is like a high skill floor with a high skill ceiling. It's going to take longer for countermeasures to catch up but when they do, they are going to be very potent at countering drones.
1
-
@javierortiz5765 You're right about cost issues and bang for buck. This reply ended up being long because you seem reasonable and I wanted to open your eyes to some things you're may not have considered. Hopefully, you give it a read and the YouTube thought police don't remove it.
You're right on cost, simplicity of production, ease of use, bang for the buck, and effectiveness against lack of modern countermeasures.
However, drones can't do what tanks or other crewed armored vehicles can do. The countries that can afford to will continue to build them. In the future, we'll have drone tanks, armored vehicles lacking human crew. Remote control will probably be offset by supplemental independent ai in the not so distant future for all drones.
A flying drone, even one carrying a big artillery shell just can't do what an armored vehicle can do as far as infantry support and anti armor warfare.
As a soldier on the ground, you're unlikely to be able to take cover behind a flying drone. You're unlikely to be moved to the battlefield by a flying drone. You're unlikely to be medevac'd by a flying drone. (While drones could do the latter with sufficient payload, there's no room for medics to stabilize and boy would it be a bummer to fall out of the sky as the drone gets jammed or blown up as a missile or other drone finds it and knocks it down.)
For all the jobs you need an armored vehicle for...you need an armored vehicle. If you're sending out troop transports and medevac vehicles, you're going to want to send tanks with them to protect from (or assault) hardened infantry positions or other armored vehicles.
This last point gets back to The Chieftain's comment about tanks being obsolete unless the other guy has one.
Besides not considering that armored land vehicles are required for things that an aerial drone just can't do, especially related to infantry operations and support thereof, in your reply, you're still not acknowledging the fact that jamming systems exist and have been an obstacle for both sides in the Ukraine war. While already being a problem (again, Perun channel has a good vid on drones!), these systems are in their infancy.
You can't jam a tank. If I have a tank and a drone jammer and you have drones but no tank, I win.
Yes, there are other anti tank systems, like man portable missiles or recoil less guns. However, there are counters to infantry, like armored fighting vehicles and... infantry (and drones!). A modern army is a system. We're not exactly seeing that from Ukraine (because of its limited weapons and equipment) or from Russia (because of their now limited equipment and limited battlefield tactics).
In the near future there are going to be laser weapons that are capable of knocking out aerial drones as well as directional jamming systems and probably even RF (radio frequency) or EMP-like countermeasures that armored vehicles will launch similarly to how they can launch IR dazzling smoke to confuse or hide from anti armor missiles.
Essentially, the armored unit would have a dedicated jamming vehicle in the formation (similar to what the formerly retired German Gepard and retired Soviet ZSU 23-4 Shilka was for in the age of low altitude aircraft threats (ironic considering we're once again in an era of low altitude aircraft threats!). This vehicle will knock out most drones attempting to attack by putting out enough RF energy to either block communication with the operator or outright fry or disable the electronic equipment that makes the drone work. In the near term, this vehicle could be a pick up truck, HMMV, or armored vehicle retrofitted with the system. Later, specific vehicles will be designed that will probably also include the "laser" systems (directed energy weapons, which are already a thing) and EMP "shotguns" as well as search radar to have early warning for the tactical armored unit (several tanks and infantry fighting vehicles).
This will be a system that will fire a spread of either RF generators to get the RF signal energy close enough to incoming drones far enough away that they won't be close enough to do damage if they crash with armed artillery size explosives or actual EMP devices that will scatter over an area of the sky where drones are coming from and emit an electro magnetic pulse that will knock out drones hardened to RF jamming. These systems might also include small explosive projectiles akin to "baby flak" that will physically knock drones out as if you went skeet shooting at the local gun club (well, skeet shooting with explosive shotgun shells).
Finally, some version of some of these anti drone systems will be retrofitted to existing vehicles and designed into new vehicles that will give an armored maneuver unit individual as well as group protection.
What you're seeing in Ukraine is that it's much cheaper and quicker to develop and get drones into action on the battlefield. Don't think for a second that the US and China aren't observing the potency of aerial drones and developing countermeasures against them.
In a way, Ukraine isn't a "modern" battlefield. Russia entered the war without secured radio communications. They didn't use jammers in the early days because they created enough interference to block their own equipment (thus anti aircraft vehicles getting popped by TB 2 drones).
Both sides have since had a lot of success with drones, but neither side has been spending resources to develop countermeasures against drones. Ukraine doesn't have the resources and Russia is too busy refurbishing tanks from the 1960s and trying to produce Su 34 fighter bombers faster than mobile patriot systems can destroy them.
Current countermeasures include nets, shotguns, jammers, cloth that blends in with night vision or blocks heat, and this sort of low tech countermeasures.
As countermeasures improve, drones will become less successful. As they become less successful, more will be needed and they will become more expensive as they'll need to be hardened against evolving countermeasures.
That's not happening in Ukraine because both Russia and Ukraine are going for a churn more drones out race. Countries that aren't fighting and have tech resources, like the US and China are most certainly developing countermeasures to drones beyond the limited and fairly low tech counters seen in Ukraine.
So, if I have a tank, an IFV, infantry, and an anti-drone system and you just have drones, infantry, and anti-drone systems... I win because of the "obsolete" armor.
Another way of looking at aerial drones vs armor is that drones are like a low skill floor with a low skill ceiling. Easy to produce, easy to use, and easy to master, but with limitations that show up early.
Anti drone tech is like a high skill floor with a high skill ceiling. It's going to take longer for countermeasures to catch up but when they do, they are going to be very potent at countering drones.
1
-
You're right about cost issues and bang for buck. This reply ended up being long because you seem reasonable and I wanted to open your eyes to some things you're may not have considered. Hopefully, you give it a read and the YouTube thought police don't remove it.
You're right on cost, simplicity of production, ease of use, bang for the buck, and effectiveness against lack of modern countermeasures.
However, drones can't do what tanks or other crewed armored vehicles can do. The countries that can afford to will continue to build them. In the future, we'll have drone tanks, armored vehicles lacking human crew. Remote control will probably be offset by supplemental independent ai in the not so distant future for all drones.
A flying drone, even one carrying a big artillery shell, just can't do what an armored vehicle can do as far as infantry support and anti armor warfare.
As a soldier on the ground, you're unlikely to be able to take cover behind a flying drone. You're unlikely to be moved to the battlefield by a flying drone. You're unlikely to be medevac'd by a flying drone. (While drones could do the latter with sufficient payload, there's no room for medics to stabilize and boy would it be a bummer to fall out of the sky as the drone gets jammed or blown up as a missile or other drone finds it and knocks it down.)
For all the jobs you need an armored vehicle for...you need an armored vehicle. If you're sending out troop transports and medevac vehicles, you're going to want to send tanks with them to protect from (or assault) hardened infantry positions or other armored vehicles.
This last point gets back to The Chieftain's comment about tanks being obsolete unless the other guy has one.
Besides not considering that armored land vehicles are required for things that an aerial drone just can't do, especially related to infantry operations and support thereof, in your reply, you're still not acknowledging the fact that jamming systems exist and have been an obstacle for both sides in the Ukraine war. While already being a problem (again, Perun channel has a good vid on drones!), these systems are in their infancy.
You can't jam a tank. If I have a tank and a drone jammer and you have drones but no tank, I win.
Yes, there are other anti tank systems, like man portable missiles or recoil less guns. However, there are counters to infantry, like armored fighting vehicles and...infantry (and drones!).
In the near future there are going to be laser weapons that are capable of knocking out aerial drones as well as directional jamming systems and probably even RF (radio frequency) or EMP-like countermeasures that armored vehicles will launch similarly to how they can launch IR dazzling smoke to confuse or hide from anti armor missiles.
Essentially, the armored unit would have a dedicated jamming vehicle in the formation (similar to what the formerly retired German Gepard and retired Soviet ZSU 23-4 Shilka was for in the age of low altitude aircraft threats (ironic considering we're once again in an era of low altitude aircraft threats!). This vehicle will knock out most drones attempting to attack by putting out enough RF energy to either block communication with the operator or outright fry or disable the electronic equipment that makes the drone work. In the near term, this vehicle could be a pick up truck, HMMV, or armored vehicle retrofitted with the system. Later, specific vehicles will be designed that will probably also include the "laser" systems (directed energy weapons, which are already a thing) and EMP "shotguns" as well as search radar to have early warning for the tactical armored unit (several tanks and infantry fighting vehicles).
This will be a system that will fire a spread of either RF generators to get the RF signal energy close enough to incoming drones far enough away that they won't be close enough to do damage if they crash with armed artillery size explosives or actual EMP devices that will scatter over an area of the sky where drones are coming from and emit an electro magnetic pulse that will knock out drones hardened to RF jamming. These systems might also include small explosive projectiles akin to "baby flak" that will physically knock drones out as if you went skeet shooting at the local gun club (well, skeet shooting with explosive shotgun shells).
Finally, some version of some of these anti drone systems will be retrofitted to existing vehicles and designed into new vehicles that will give an armored maneuver unit individual as well as group protection.
What you're seeing in Ukraine is that it's much cheaper and quicker to develop and get drones into action on the battlefield. Don't think for a second that the US and China aren't observing the potency of aerial drones and developing countermeasures against them.
In a way, Ukraine isn't a "modern" battlefield. Russia entered the war without secured radio communications. They didn't use jammers in the early days because they created enough interference to block their own equipment (thus anti aircraft vehicles getting popped by TB 2 drones).
Both sides have since had a lot of success with drones, but neither side has been spending resources to develop countermeasures against drones. Ukraine doesn't have the resources and Russia is too busy refurbishing tanks from the 1960s and trying to produce Su 34 fighter bombers faster than mobile patriot systems can destroy them.
Current countermeasures include nets, shotguns, jammers, cloth that blends in with night vision or blocks heat, and this sort of low tech countermeasures.
As countermeasures improve, drones will become less successful. As they become less successful, more will be needed and they will become more expensive as they'll need to be hardened against evolving countermeasures.
That's not happening in Ukraine because both Russia and Ukraine are going for a churn more drones out race. Countries that aren't fighting and have tech resources, like the US and China are most certainly developing countermeasures to drones beyond the limited and fairly low tech counters seen in Ukraine.
So, if I have a tank, an IFV, infantry, and an anti-drone system and you just have drones, infantry, and anti-drone systems... I win because of the "obsolete" armor.
Another way of looking at aerial drones vs armor is that drones are like a low skill floor with a low skill ceiling. Easy to produce, easy to use, and easy to master, but with limitations that show up early.
Anti drone tech is like a high skill floor with a high skill ceiling. It's going to take longer for countermeasures to catch up but when they do, they are going to be very potent at countering drones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randygraham926 - here's my standard long form message for this topic if you'd like more insight:
15,000 years ago, North America was covered by a sheet of ice. Where did the ice go??
Around 15k years ago, the ice covering North America began to melt as the Earth's climate began to warm.
This warming started about 15,000 years before humans began emmiting carbon into the atmosphere.
Humans are insignificant to the planet.
We just don't live long enough to have the perspective of how little time we've been here compared to how long Earth has been here.
As individuals, we live perhaps 100 years. The average temperature of the planet will be about the same when we die as when we were born. We know what the climate is like in our very brief window of personal existence. It's difficult for us to imagine it being in a constant state of change, both warming and cooling.
The climate has warmed and cooled in cycles for 4 billion years, all without any intervention or encouragement from Man until the most recent 200 years or so.
200 years ago, before man started emitting carbon in significant amount, the Earth was in an ice age period where temperatures are cooler but warming up as Earth heads toward exiting the ice age period of the climate cycle
200 years is completely insignificant to the planet. Today, we're still in the same ice age and, even if no more carbon was emitted into the atmosphere AND all carbon that humans had emitted over the previous 200 years was sequestered and removed from the atmosphere, the Earth WOULD CONTINUE WARMING out of the current ice age.
We do not have the technology to prevent the earth from warming...or from cooling. In about 50,000 years, still in the current ice age, the planet will enter another cooling phase before again warming. It will do this several times before warming out of the current ice age.
Yup, in 50,000 years, global COOLING will be the crisis we need to "save the planet" from. Wrap your head around that if you're hoping "going green" or being "carbon nuetral" will prevent climate change.
The REAL drivers of climate change are the sun, the Earth's distance from the sun as we orbit it, Earth's tilt on its axis, geological activity in the Earth's core and up the crust, volcanic activity that will throw ash into the atmosphere, the distance from the moon to Earth, and extra planetary threats (meteor Impacts) in combination with the air and ocean currents around the planet.
We don't have the technology to affect ANY of the actual things that that cause significant change of the Earth's climate.
Yes, since man has been emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the current warming trend has increased in magnitude.
No, it doesn't matter. The Earth was going to get much warmer than it is today even if humans didn't exist, AND Earth would cool down again and repeat the cycle until the sun expands into a red giant and completely destroys the planet as the star expands outward to occupy the region Earth currently orbits at.
But, don't worry. Before that happens, Earth will lose its grip on the moon (which is slowly orbiting farther and farther away). That could end life on the planet as it wreaks havoc on how our ocean and atmospheric currents work combined with an increase in the planet's rotation speed (progressively shorter days) as the sun begins to push harder on the planet without the counterbalance of the moon slowing the earth's rotation.
As I said, we don't have the technology to stabilize and maintain Earth's climate.
Humans are insignificant to the planet.
1
-
@basedoz5745 - I'm not saying people nowadays are whiny because the Earth is warming up and will be subjected to more varied meteorological extremes. Keep in mind that weather and climate are related but not synonymous.
What frustrates me is both that the recent "hottest ever" headlines conflate climate with weather AND forget to mention "in recorded weather history", which is a really short time period in Earth's history.
It also frustrates me that once we bring climate into the discussion modern climatologists forget to mention a lot of things they must know.
Modern climatologists must have studied paleoclimatology, paleoecology, and geology (to some extent) in order to understand how our current climate came to be what it.
They forget to mention that climate is mainly driven by things we can't control. When talking about how a few degrees will drastically affect ocean levels and life on the planet, they forget to explain that Earth had been much warmer than currently and that it warms and cools on cycles based on things humans can't affect.
I think all the talk of "saving the planet" (a planet which finds humans completely insignificant) and "stop carbon emissions!" either to be designed to give people a (false) sense of hope that WE can do anything to prevent climate change or that such talk is designed to distract people from the very fact that we can't prevent it.
Basically, we'd need terraforming technology to maintain the current climate. I'm all for that, but humans haven't evolved far enough to prioritize such global initiatives over things like "defense" and how to make more advanced weapons.
Although, if we don't work on climate tech, the weapons will probably come in handy. But, they'll also remove the need for humans to learn climate tech....by removing humans.
I just find it genuinely funny that if humans had shown up 50,000 to 100,000 years later or only 150,000 years ago and progressed at the same pace, our equivalent "modern" humans would be facing global COOLING as a crisis and talking about they hoped all the carbon emissions would've been enough to cause a warming trend.
1
-
Many in the comments are agreeing that TLJ (and Rian Johnson, et al attacking and insulting critical fans) was the real problem. It's good that this writer is finally acknowledging a problem with Disney Star Wars. It would be better if he would step back from his Disney Shill status and take a more analytical view at the entire situation.
Regarding other big box office Disney movies in relation the Disney Star Wars, none of those other films had a FOUR BILLION DOLLAR entrance fee.
Once we account for production cost, marketing cost ("P&A cost"), and the theatres' share of box office gross AND figure in each films share of that $ 4 billion initial investment (and only using 60% of that sum, figuring, generously, that merch and other media account for the other 40%), every film has either broke even or lost money.
Disney NEEDS at least 2 more films by 2024, which is unlikely at this point, in order to have all 6 films break even, on average.
Realistically, Disney Star Wars isn't even going to pay for itself for probably 15-20 years after the initial investment. With the terrible leadership from Kathy at Lucasfilm and Bobby Iger's failure at the helm of Disney (related to Star Wars), buying the Star Wars IP was a bad investment.
THEN, there's the ADDITIONAL $2 billion dollars invested into the Disney theme park attractions for Star Wars, which are not increasing attendance at the parks.
Don't let the big box office of a few Disney Star Wars movies fool ya. Disney is losing money on Star Wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rambo-cambo3581 - not acknowledging the similarity to WWI trench warfare makes you look ignorant.
Why were the men stuck in the trenches? If they got out and tried to gain ground, they were cut down.
Why are troops in Ukraine stuck in trenches? If they get out and try to gain ground, they are cut down.
Then, it was by artillery and machine guns. Now, it's by artillery, ATGMS (if they try to use vehicles), and drones.
That last item is what makes the connection to the primitive trench warfare so stark. It's because technology has had advanced that the troops are again stuck in trenches.
When you call me ignorant, you seem to be mired in the conditions of trenches and the things that had to be endured.
When you see a video of an emaciated Russian soldier eating snow with a spoon, video of soldiers diving under flooded trenches to retrieve an ammo box, videos of guys running out of ammo and then being gunned down after surrendering, fpv drones flying into guys who are out of cover, etc I'm going say that while I acknowledge that chemical weapons appear to have only been used sparingly if at all (in the very early stages and probably by Russia sending improperly labeled artillery ammo to the front as they raided old stockpiles) and that there are fewer troops stuck in the trenches in Ukraine, they are every bit the hell that any trench warfare has ever been.
Refusing to understand that while making the drawing the connection to technology creating the trench situation just makes you look ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:49 re, covert cabal
Those guys don't seem credible, or at least seem very stupid. They seem to equate "number of tanks" (what they can count) with "number of FUNCTIONAL tanks."
Covert cabal, from what I've seen, vastly overestimates Russian armor power. Basically, they're doing the same thing everyone else did prior Russia becoming the 2nd strongest armored force in Ukraine...possibly the 3rd strongest, depending on how many of the Ukrainian Farmers Army tanks have been reassigned to the Ukrainian military.
So, while everyone else made the same mistake in intelligence gathering, Covert Cabal continues to make that mistake over a year into Russia proving that it's stored armor was not well maintained, at best, and destroyed by corruption at worst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
8:04 Now, wait just a minute, Mister! If humans are the cause of climate change, HOW did those glaciers melt BEFORE humans existed?!
There must not have really been glaciers and the climate has always been the way it was in 1700, before the Industrial Revolution. Right? Right?!
I've never understood how climate "scientists" can talk about the Earth's current climate and climate change without relating it to pre human climate change.
Because the face of the planet is continually changing, even if ALL other factors affecting climate could be controlled, the way heat disperses around the planet will change as oceans change shape, size, or even disappear.
Besides Earth being in a Goldilocks zone of the solar system, humans have existed soley in a Goldilocks period of Earth's climate. Every 27 million years, Earth enters a higher level of asteroid activity for a few hundred thousand years (or about as long as humans have existed on Earth). If we entered that period today, carbon emissions wouldn't be a notable factor in climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@attilamarics3374 - Hello, bot, and thanks for replying and fueling the algorithm!
First, Russia isn't taking a Ukranian stronghold. However, Avdiivka, that you're likely referring to, has been under Russian assault since 2014.
So, even if Russia managed to capture the rubble of the former city, it would've taken them nearly 8 years AND Russia will have lost approximately the number of troops in the effort as the pre-war population of the city. Further, the city has no actual strategic value. Like Bakhmut, capturing the rubble of Avdiivka doesn't help Russia accomplish anything else.
On the other hand, and to answer your question of, "What has Ukraine been doing?" Ukraine has been demolishing Russian troops and equipment at a faster pace than Russia can keep up with.
Through ongoing, constant "quiet" mobilization, Russia has almost been able to press gang as many new troops as they're losing. However, because of the huge losses Russia is suffering, these new recruits are sent to the front with little training and little gear or ammunition.
Russia has almost been able to keep pace with BMP 3 production.
However, in every other case, Russia is losing troops, equipment, and artillery ammunition faster than it can replace it.
So, Ukraine has been wearing Russia down. And, while Russia has only been able to attempt an offensive in one area at a time (First Bakhmut, now Avdiivka), Ukraine has opened 4 offensive fronts that Russia is unable to hold or resupply.
Sure, Ukraine hasn't moved at the pace it did in 2022, before Russia was able to deploy immense minefields. However, Ukraine is steadily moving in the areas that they want to, despite it being slower than anyone (except Putin and his bots) would like.
Thanks again for the question and fueling the algorithm!
Cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wilberwhateley7569 the "privileged media" don't care about income from ad revenue sharing on YouTube. So, they show whatever they want and youtube demonitizes the video.
However, because those outlets already have a lot of subscribers and views, the algorithm doesn't hide the videos.
If Paul, with a smaller subscriber base puts up a video that gets demonetized, he loses the income from the video (which the "privileged media" don't care about because they make money other ways) and the video won't be recommended to people. So, that's also making it a "why bother?" proposition. If very few people will see it, the creator might think it's not worth the effort to make the vid.
Now, if Paul got his subscriber count way up and then put up de monetized vids, he wouldn't get ad revenue but they'd still get recommended. Under your logic, at that point having more subscribers would make Paul privileged media.
1
-
1
-
Something I try to remind people about on the rare occurance of a shooting involving youths: VEHICLES are one of the leading causes of accidental deaths among people under 18 and claim far more teen lives than firearms. The school shooting is certainly unfortunate, unnecessary, and sad. However, EVERY DAY in the USA about 8 teens become fatalities in vehicle incidents. Every. Day. Virtually none of this makes the news because it's so common, it's not sensational.
Vehicle ownership and operation isn't even a Constitutional Right yet we never hear anyone asking for more car control over who's able to own and drive one or what sort of training and proficiency tests there ought to be.
Most people recognize a firearm as a weapon. Most people view a car as a toy or simple tool for getting from place to place.
Vehicles are 4,000+ lbs guided missiles that are involved in more teen deaths every year than firearms.
There are TWO simple rules for safely operating this weapon system.
1, Don't hit stuff
2, Do everything possible to prevent stuff hitting you
Yet, most people operating these weapons don't even realize they're wielding a potentially deadly weapon, don't know the 2 rules of safe driving, and don't OBEY the 2 simple rules of safe driving because they don't realize they're operating a weapon.
Again, VEHICLES are involved in an average of 8 teenage fatalities EVERY DAY in just the USA. Vehicle ownership and operation isn't a Constitutional Right and if we're SERIOUS about saving lives (every year vehicles are involved in as many deaths as firearms, excluding self elimination, at about 30,000 with another 100,000 injuries in the US across all ages), especially young lives, we OUGHT to be talking about stricter regulations on who can own a vehicle, what type of extensive training ought to be required, what kind of proficiency needs to be demonstrated (such as resisting the urge to multi task while driving), and ensuring all qualified drivers are shown the GRAPHIC consequences of failing to follow the 2 simple rules of safe driving. Most "accidents" are in fact "collisions" and not accidents because an ignorant or belligerent driver did something other than driving safely while behind the wheel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jan_Strzelecki - "because once they touch down"
So, again you're trying to argue in circles that astronaut feet will kick up dust, but the lander's feet won't.
Try to think logically instead of like a fan girl.
Here is a guaranteed fact that you can't successfully argue against: Even if all the inconsistencies of the moon landing photos and video can be plausibly explained, there are still A LOT of inconsistencies that require explanation.
If the charge was "landing on the moon", with the available evidence from photos and videos released that were allegedly filmed on the moon, no prosecutor in his right mind would take the case. There's simply too many inconsistencies in the evidence.
The dust is JUST ONE inconsistency. If you only look at each individual tree, you may want to argue that you're not standing in a forest...if you look at ALL the trees around you, you'd realize it's highly likely that you are, in fact, in a forest...whether you want to be or not.
Look at ALL the inconsistencies that must be explained and you'll see the same forest. Again, I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon. Instead, I'm saying I'd like to see the ACTUAL media, photos and videos, that was filmed there, if any still exists. It's time.
Remember that the moon missions, more than just an American achievement were also a Cold War psyop against the USSR...much like our HIMARS artillery system (and our sheer mass and speed of other aid to Ukraine) is currently a psy op against Russia, reminding Putin, in his renewed Cold War approach to international politics, that the US and its Allies are indeed superior in not just technology but logistics and sheer manufacturing capacity.
So, yeah. We went to the moon. I'd like to see the actual stuff that was filmed there, not the sound stage "based on a true story" stuff that we've been presented.
1
-
@Jan_Strzelecki - Look, man. I'm not trying to ruin your lunar fangirl experience. I just want to see the actual photos.
You go on about physics but completely ignoring the static electricity created on the moon by the way the solar wind passes over the surface and positive ions can't keep up with negative particles. That static charge, which the lunar surface does not ground (as happens on earth) is why the dust stuck to "everything", a direct quote. Well, everything except the landing pads because apparently Earth had atmosphere and the moon doesn't...except THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES THE STATIC CHARGE THAT STICKS THE DUST TO EVERYTHING ON THE MOON.
Smh. Yeah, lunar physics, dude. Indeed. Like I said, you explain one inconsistency and that same explanation proves another inconsistency as valid.
Physics, indeed. Atmosphere, too. Earth, Wind, Fire all that sort of thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhaz89 - people who work hourly jobs, less than 40 hours per week usually aren't provided with insurance (or can't afford the premium if offered to part time employees.
So, health insurance companies are irrelevant in this discussion of service sector or other hourly "can't do from home" types of jobs.
If you don't have health insurance, no free test for you.
Second, test kits are still widely unavailable. They didn't have the several thousand to test the cruise passengers in California. New York, which is now under state of emergency, doesn't have enough test kits to test the area where a cluster outbreak is occurring or other people who may have traveled in or out of the area.
If there aren't kits on hand, no free test.
Like I said previously, welcome to the real world. It's different than what the talking heads from the president's propaganda team are telling you. Feel free to think for yourself, make your own observations, and come to your own conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
9:12 Since you were an MP and infantry officer, regarding the effectiveness or usefulness of tanks on the modern battlefield I'll defer to someone who is an expert in the subject of tanks and armored or mechanized combat.
"Tanks are obsolete on the battlefield... Unless the other guy has one and you don't."
The problem with NATO or the US of A expecting tanks to be a big deal is that NATO or the US wouldn't have been stopped by massive minefields because we have OTHER tools besides tanks to facilitate the clearing of minefields.
Had the US or NATO given Ukraine the hundreds or thousands of cruise or other long range missiles and a vast fleet of aircraft with which to destroy the GBAD (ground based air defenses) and C3 (command, control, communications) which prevent aircraft from being able to fly over battlefield, then Ukraine could've done what NATO or the US would've done:
In the opening days of offensive, destroy GBAD and C3 with cruise missile spam combined with conventional precision bombing and SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) to gain the ability to operate aircraft over the theater while disrupting the Russians ability to coordinate. Then, aircraft would bombard the artillery which is protecting the minefields. Then, mine clearing operations would proceed with minimal and local opposition. Then the tanks and IFV would roll through where the minefields used to be to attack enemy defensive positions.
Sure, we gave Ukraine a handful of Western tanks. Even though most experts knew that IFV were far more valuable in this theater and we should have sent far more of both (considering there are thousands of vehicles already pre staged in Europe for US use in the event of a Russian invasion of NATO, collecting dust). But, we DIDN'T send the hundreds or thousands of long range weapons that would allow the tanks to be useful. We finally started seeing such weapons show up in limited quantity, but well after Ukraine was bogged down trying to clear minefields while Russia was hitting the area with artillery.
Perun channel recently did a presentation on the success and limitations of drones. We don't see all the drones that just fall out of the sky after being jammed or shot down (from both sides). Tanks are still perfectly useful on the modern battlefield, especially when combined with the other pieces of the puzzle...
Pieces which the US, and thereby NATO and by extension Europe, has access to and pieces which Ukraine doesn't have access to, despite the fact that they fighting for Europe and for the prevention of WWIII (if Putin isn't sent home packing from Ukraine because the West loses its will to continue sending aid, then Putin will have every confidence to invade any NATO country knowing that the larger powers don't have the will to fight him since we didn't want to be involved when it was merely equipment we had to send with Ukraine spending all the blood as opposed to having to send men to die in a first hand fight to protect some little former Soviet state).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Averagegunenthusiast the problem is that in Afghanistan, the enemy was engaging with the pk machine guns (7.62x54) at farther ranges than the typical m4 or m249 (5.56 NATO) could respond to. The issue wasn't penetration. It was range and effectiveness and knocking out the enemy when they were hit.
So, instead of adding another 7.62 NATO (7.62x51) DMR or LMG to squads, the Pentagon wanted a 1 size fits all solution for longer range, greater penetration, and small size for vehicles and cqb.
Since we left Afghanistan, the Pentagon is now trying to field a battle rifle designed for Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in the current actual war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians reported (shown in this vid) that most engagements are under 300m and indeed there is actual trench fighting at very close range. Currently, we have 5.56 ammo that is capable of penetrating Russian body armor at the combat ranges being seen in the Ukraine war (and that's assuming it has actual steel or ballistic plate instead of cardboard).
So, the Pentagon is pushing this xm7 project as a way for officers and officials to to retire and enjoy kickbacks from Sig. That's probably not true. It's never fair to assume malice where mere incompetence explains the situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
Russia has been treated like a civilized country since the end of WWII in the hopes that eventually Russia would become a civilized nation. Russia has repeatedly, through the decades and different leaders, proven that Russia is simply not capable of becoming a civilized nation.
The world needs to stop treating Russia as a civilized nation. Russia operates like a very, very large Liberia and Putin is a more intelligent and more crafty Charles Taylor. There's nothing civilized about Russia or Putin.
Europe needs to realize that there are enemies at their doorstep and Ukraine is fighting to keep that door securely closed.
Further, the US is a fickle ally. As a people, we (Americans) are busy "keeping up with the Jones." We're driving ourselves into greater debt to give the wealthy and corporations further control over us while we're busy being too self absorbed to realize that the corporations and very wealthy are continually taking a larger and larger piece of the pie and throwing us smaller scraps while encouraging us to work against each other.
The point being that America is currently in a very pre WWII-esque head in the sand isolationist mode, overall. This is partly due to the 20 years of wasted invasioneering in the desert. We essentially wasted our will to "help the world" on misguided quests to civilize a couple countries in the Middle East that didn't want our help and weren't willing to help themselves.
Sadly, had we not tried "nation building" in the Middle East, there would probably be a lot more will to help Ukraine, a country that's actually a democracy and friendly AND asking for help.
But, in America, we know we have 2 oceans protecting us and nobody is going to attack the USA.
Europe doesn't have that luxury and can't count on the USA. European democracies need to help Ukraine make staying in Ukraine (Europe) untenable. Europe then needs to maintain peace by preparing for war.
1
-
11:35 re, military at 31
They ought to first think about what they want to be doing at age 35 and 40.
If they aren't interested in a 20 year military career, what are they wanting to do when they get out. Will military service hejp then accomplish that.
There's no point (as far as life goals, career, and retirement) in doing an enlistment or 2 and then being 40 and thinking "Hmmm, what am I going to do for work now?"
If they are thinking about a 20 military career, they may run into age discrimination and find it hard to earn their E-7 promotion by year 13 or 14 (might be branch dependent, but in the USMC, if you didn't make E-7 by year 14, you were blocked from re-enlistment.
If they have a bachelor's degree and are hoping to become an officer, that's not automatic. They will probably have to serve at least one tour and make E-5 before being able to try for officer selection.
And, of course, are they OK with being deployed to a combat zone, should a conflict arise, is always a good question that anyone wanting to join the military should ask themselves even if it might not happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:30 re Rubio, Trump, Kellogg, et al saying Ukraine can't win, has no cards, no military solution... Soon these guys will be saying:
"Any day now Russia will send in their best troops and equipment that they've been saving this whole time!"
That's a similar level of ludicrous.
All of these Russian propaganda talking points have long been debunked.
The military solution in Ukraine doesn't require Ukraine to retake all its territory occupied by Russia. It merely requires Ukraine, and international friends, make staying in Ukraine untenable for Russia.
Russia was militarily defeated in Syria (recently), in the first Russian invasion of Georgia, and in Afghanistan and Russia withdrew, defeated, from all those conflicts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramonpen2592 there's a couple issues. People LIVE ON THAT LAND. Russia would have to agree to allow anyone who wants to leave would be able and that would require international observers. Plus, Russia claims territory that is fully under control of Ukraine. If someone broke into your home and claimed your living room is there's, despite the fact that they only broke into your garage and couldn't get into the living room, would you give up your living room?
Russia is demanding that Ukraine "leave the Russian oblasts of Zaporizhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Russia doesn't fully control any of those oblasts, was chased out of most of Kherson, and hasn't ever reached Zaporizhia.
Then, there's the tens of thousands of children Russia kidnapped and hasn't returned. This is the primary war crime Putin is wanted for by The Hague.
Also consider, if you reward a puppy for pooping the rug, it's guaranteed that he'll poop it again. Russia keeping any Ukrainian territory is rewarding Russia and encouraging them to invade again, except this time they already have a toe hold in the new territory.
Finally, only way to prevent that inevitable future Russian 3rd invasion of Ukraine is to have Ukraine join NATO with the remaining territory Ukraine controls. Russia won't ever agree to this. Russia has broken every agreement it's made related to Ukraine since 1992. There is no peace agreement that will provide for an actual peace without Russia entirely leaving all Ukranian territory or Ukraine joining NATO.
What you are advocating is actually a cease fire that will allow Russia to reaarm and reconstitute its military while the Western world forgets about Ukraine and ceases military support in light of the cease fire, aka "peace". In the short term this will stop the eliminations. In the long run, it's encouraging Russia to not only invade Ukraine again but to also invade the Baltics which are NATO members.
Russia just doesn't respond to weakness and appeasement. It's viewed as something to be taken advantage of.
1
-
1
-
@OrangeDaddy47 That's not true. The original "separatists" were foreign criminals and anarchists which Russia transported to Ukraine and then supported with Russian special forces who trained them in basic tactics, how to operate captured equipment, and called in helicopter gunship support when Ukraine would try to move troops into the area in response. Internally, Russia referred to these proxy fighters as "asymmetrical fighters" while calling them separatists publicly.
It's similar to the Russian campaign of dumping foreigners near the EU border and giving them bicycles to ride into the EU looking for asylum or refugee status from wherever they were actually from.
A friend who lived in the Donetsk area during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine called them terrorists and fled to a city father west. She's one of the "Russian speakers" that were supposedly wanting independence and whom Putin was invading Ukraine to "save". She now hates Russia both for what they've done to Ukraine and for stealing her heritage since being Russian is now bad.
These "separatists" used the typical Russian tactics of bombarding an area before moving in, not caring about casualties of the people who lived there. Once they were in an area, local criminals looking for a legal outlet and people who had bought into the propaganda would join the Russian proxy invaders.
Most people in the "area seeking independence" consumed Russian media, TV mainly. And they didn't realize they were being invaded until artillery shells started landing. My friend's Russian grandmother (moved to the territory of Ukraine under Stalin) was killed by artillery from the "separatists" because she refused to leave her home and bought into the propaganda that Russia was coming to "make things great again."
Prior to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea were already semi autonomous regions in Ukraine. People mostly didn't pay attention to what either Ukraine OR Russia was doing and went on about their daily lives. There wasn't any discrimination against Russian speaking people until AFTER the 2014 invasion where some Ukrainians blamed ANY Russian of causing the problem. That said, other than feeling like a refugee from leaving her childhood home and starting new in an unknown city, my friend didn't experience any discrimination other than people saying her young daughter spoke strangely. Even that stopped as the girl acclimated and began learning Ukrainian from interaction with the other children.
As an added bonus, the first president of the DPR was neither Ukranian OR Russian. How's that for home grown "separatists"??
So, no. Prior to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, there were not separatists active, especially militarily, in Luhansk, Donetsk, or Crimea, let alone Zaporizhia or Kherson (which Putin also claims, despite not occupying and having only the tiniest amount of support from any Russian sympathizers).
And, EVERY oblast in Ukraine voted for separation from Russia in 1991 after independence FROM RUSSIA was an option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scotthenry3401 either comments are bugged again or the YouTube thought police removed my comment where I pointed out that Ukraine was never being considered for NATO membership. It's ironically unfortunate, too, because had Ukraine joined NATO as other former Soviet states were allowed to, Russia wouldn't have invaded.
NATO had been, unofficially, telling Ukraine "someday". Meanwhile, NATO had been telling Russia, unofficially, that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO as a wrong minded appeasement attempt at the belligerent and imperialistic Russia.
It's asinine to think or try to argue that the largest country on Earth needs just this little bit more land to feel safe from an alliance that exists solely to protect its members against Russian aggression. Further, Russia can't currently defend its own legitimate airspace or borders. More territory isn't going fix that, it makes it worse.
Finally, the logic that Russia can't be safe if it borders NATO means that all of Europe ought to capitulate and join Russia. Again, ludicrous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Biden backing Ukraine against tyranny is great!
It's just too bad Biden is a HYPOCRITE!
While Biden helps Ukraine fight a tyrannical neighbor, he takes steps to encroach on the United State's Constitutional Right of the citizenry to defend itself from tyranny, as if something like that could never happen here, in the US.
"That could never happen" is only true right up until the point when it DOES happen. Thinking it could never happen further opens us up to it actually happening.
Biden is arming Ukrainians while trying to disarm Americans. Biden backing Ukraine is great. Biden being an anti-Constitutionalist and hypocrite isn't so great.
Even assuming that the government never had an issue, it's entirely plausible that cyber attacks or other misinformation campaigns could sow chaos. Recently, during the pandemic, we saw law enforcement have personnel issues because of sick officers. Further, legally, police officers have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect citizens (yet, citizens must still obey police officers?).
In a chaotic or anarchy situation where rule of law breaks down, United States citizens must be able to defend themselves, their families, and their property. This basic Right is guaranteed in the Constitution and Biden and the illegal and illegitimate ATF are working to infringe on thus basic Right and make Americans weak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The part that failed was probably the DWR coating. You saw him show a clip of someone spraying it on a jacket.
You can buy durable water repellant coating and spray it on anything. As he says in the vid, once the DWR coating fails, the water soaks into the material. The DWR just helps keep water beading up on fabrics, like scotchguard on carpet. If the water beads, it will roll off instead of soak the jacket.
But, the DWR, as mentioned in the vid, isn't very durable. And, it's subject to how well it was applied originally and if the wearer reapplied the coating when they noticed water stopped beading up.
If you're wearing anything besides actually waterproof plastic or rubber type raincoats, look into getting some DWR that you can reapply. Of course, if you're environmentally concerned, it's still not healthy stuff.
1
-
1
-
21:10 Uhhh... hopefully, those provinces weren't paying attention to what happened when Ukraine gave up its Soviet era nukes in exchange for reassurances by the US and UK (and Russia, insert Dr Evil pinky smile) that their territorial integrity would be protected.
You know if say, the caucuses withdraw from the Russian Federation that eventually Russia will be back, looking to assert dominance over them as it did with Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine.
I'm sure if Putin had it to do over again, he would've absorbed Belarus before attacking Ukraine as the 2 poisonings against Belarus' leader indicate strong displeasure in the lack of military involvement.
Regardless, what deal could be struck with breakaway Russian states to get their nukes? Lord knows the Islamic fundamentalist enemies of the West are probably already trying to work deals on religious grounds why Islamic people in those governments should give nuclear material or warheads to say, Taliban, for example.
Besides that religious angle in some areas of the Russian Federation, nobody is going to believe that the West will intervene when Russia inevitably comes calling.
China will probably invade Outer Manchuria to take it back adding a whole other layer of chaos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:09 re, the phony debate.
The terrible and ironic thing is that Putin is shelling the very Russians, in Ukraine, that he says he wants to liberate. Mariupol, Kharkiv, Izium, these are towns with ethnic Russian populations.
I have an ethnic Russian friend who fled Donetsk during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. She's still in Ukraine and prior to the 2022 invasion always referred to herself as a "Russian". She speaks primarily Russian and has learned Ukrainian and English after moving to a more westward city.
When I spoke to her a few days ago, she told me that she is no longer Russian. Now she's Ukrainian and so proud to be Ukrainian. She also said she's angry. She watches updates and sees the destruction of eastern cities where she still has friends or family and is just angry.
Again, she is one of the ethnic Russians that Putin was allegedly liberating.
Now, after making camo nets and molotovs, she's learning how to shoot and operate a manpad surface to air missile system and has renounced her Russian heritage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damarcusowens5511 Hi, thanks for the question. First, I'd like to point out that saying, "Ukraine should've taken their defense seriously," is like saying "Mexico should've taken their defense seriously," if the United States were to invade Mexico.
Mexico simply doesn't have the resources to fund the buildup and maintenance of a military force great enough to prevent the US from invading.
You're seriously trying to argue that since Ukraine couldn't defend themselves from a much larger neighbor (Russia is the largest country in the world) with a much larger military without foreign assistance that Russia should be able to take over Ukraine.
Hitler could've used more people like you on his side. Maybe you could've convinced the Americans that since Britain (indeed all of Europe) wasn't taking their defense seriously that Germany should've been able to assimilate the entire world, eventually.
Secondly, Ukraine is literally (Ukraine being derived from the Polish word for frontier or borderland) the frontier between Europe and Russia.
Russia has begun an invasion of Europe. Putin never intended to stop at Ukraine. Putin's motivation to invade Ukraine began back at least as far as 2003 when he told Bush not to invade Iraq looking for imaginary WMD and Bush promptly brushed Putin's concerns aside and invaded Iraq. Putin sees the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy of the 21st century.
The fact that Western nations no longer needed to heed the word of a Russian Czar, as they did in the Soviet era, set Putin on a course to "Make Russia Great Again" by rebuilding the Russian Empire.
The reason sending aid to Ukraine, in sufficient type and quantity, is preventing WWIII is because it tells Putin that the West won't stand back and let him forcibly rebuild the Russian Empire by invading and subjugating nations that he feels are part of the Russian sphere of influence or that he feels are "rightfully part of Russia".
Yes, Putin could absolutely send Russian forces into Estonia tomorrow. In fact, I'd argue that this is actually more likely than people would like to recognize.
Because Europe is only half heartedly helping Ukraine and the US (leading global exporter of Freedom and Democracy) took 7 months off, Putin views this much as he viewed the almost non response to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, as a green light to continue.
Not helping Ukraine sufficiently to defeat Russia on the battlefield or make keeping Russian forces in Ukraine untenable is telling Putin that Europe and NATO won't actually fight Russia for the little actually-Russian (in Putin's mind) countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. That encourages him to think about conquering these countries (after or in addition to Ukraine) in order to gain their resources and population to forcibly add to the Russian war machine before advancing on Poland, Finland, Sweden, and even parts of Germany.
So, just sending aid to Ukraine isn't preventing anything. You're right about that. Sending ENOUGH aid of the right types to Ukraine to make staying in Ukraine untenable for Russia is what will prevent Russia, Putin specifically from trying to invade the Baltics (which are now NATO members).
With the current half hearted assistance to Ukraine, a Russian invasion of Estonia would be a amazing distraction for the West from Ukraine. That would be a huge benefit to Russia in its conquest of Ukraine even if every Russian that went to Estonia was eventually un-alived and the Russian invasion of Estonia eventually thwarted.
Not being able to succeed at such a thing hadn't stopped Russia from trying (1 unsuccessful invasion followed by 1 semi successful invasion of Georgia and 1 semi successful invasion of Ukraine followed by the currently stymied 2nd invasion of Ukraine).
Basically, stopping Russia in Ukraine with significant enough Western support will send the message to Russia that "No, you can't invade your neighbors" and it will also decimate Russia's capacity for a conventional war.
Even the current half hearted assistance to Ukraine combined with sanctions on Russian individuals and the Ukrainian strategic bombing campaign of Russian oil refining and fuels production is beginning to push Russia past the tipping point of the elite becoming fed up with Putin and wanting to do something about it before a window finds them.
The recent arrest of Defense Minister Shoigu's assistant Defense Minister is showing this infighting of the various factions had shifted from them fighting over the scraps Putin gives them to fighting over who will shape post-Putin Russia (and therefore who will be in the best position to benefit financially).
Shoigu is in charge of the military not because he's proficient. Rather he's Defense Minister because Putin views him as completely loyal. A dictator's greatest fear is the military, via a military coup, and having a loyal man at the top of it is essential.
The fact that Shoigu's right hand man was made vulnerable to punishment for his corruption is actually a shot at Shoigu which, even though Putin ordered the arrest is actually an attack on Putin by the people who made the corruption public in a way that couldn't be ignored.
So, this may have been a bit more than you were asking for, but if your question was genuine or another person might genuinely have the same question, hopefully this has given some perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By halting aid to Ukraine, the United States will both lose any influence over Ukraine's war activities AND be escalating the war in the mind of Russia's leaders.
Borrowed from my reply to another comment:
Actually, it's worse than that. If the US quits supporting Ukraine, Ukraine will be forced to start attacking targets inside Russia (especially civilian targets like heat and electricity) that they so far have been avoiding because it would cause a loss of Western support.
Perun channel recently did a presentation that indicates a large part of Putin being able to continue is the lack of effect or cost of the war on most Russian's everyday lives. If Ukraine was able to place a cost on the war for ordinary Russians (say, not having heat or electricity during winter) then the tacit support for Putin's war could dry up and leave Putin with larger concerns at home. Maybe not but it's a possibility Ukraine would have to explore if they lose US aid.
Remember, if Western aid stops, Ukraine ends up in a desperate fight for survival alone and means they'll have lost the reason to take the high road and will need to take whatever action they see necessary to ensure their survival.
Ironically, the US halting military aid to Ukraine could actually cause the as yet merely threatened nuclear escalation. With the current global situation, this could happen by Russia helping Iran attack overseas US assets, if Russia doesn't act directly.
Putin and his upper echelon already believe this is a war between Russia and the United States or NATO and that we are (somehow) forcing Ukraine to fight when Ukraine really just wants to give up and be part of Russia.
If US aid dries up and Ukraine is forced to start attacking infrastructure inside Russia in order to place a cost on the war for average Russians and try to cause backlash against Putin inside Russia, Russia will view these attacks as COMING FROM (or at the instruction of) THE UNITED STATES.
Juila ioffe, an expert on Russia, has suggested that it would be better if Russians were purple. As it is they look like us, European (most Americans are of European descent) but they absolutely don't think like us. Because they look similar, it's easy to forget that they very much aren't similar.
So, with that in mind, our purple Russians will interpret the consequences of US halting aid to Ukraine as escalation by the United States and an attack by the United States directly on Russia proper.
By halting aid to Ukraine, the United States will both lose any influence over Ukraine's war activities AND be escalating the war in the mind of Russia's leaders.
The US has so far spent merely 5% of the defense budget (JUST of the defense budget, NOT 5% of the WHOLE budget!) aiding Ukraine and MOST of that has been spent paying American defense contractors to replace old equipment and munitions sent to Ukraine (there would've been some cost, regardless, to decommission some of this materiel had it not been sent).
Further, aid to Ukraine is a LOAN, like aid to Britain was during WWII, and isn't any more of a "gift" than a mortgage or car loan is a "gift" from the bank. The gift is that you can buy a house or car. The gift to Ukraine is that they can fight for their ultimate freedom from Russia and demolish the military power of a rival of the US in the process.
The correct answer is to "give" Ukraine what they need to end the war as quickly as possible so that we can all get back to a more normal pre-war situation where Russia is inside Russian borders and isn't screwing up the world economy and encouraging unrest in the Middle East.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uuhhh, as I look over at my previous laptop on a shelf, a BSOD Asus G751, replete with battery that can't be removed.
This unit lasted 2 years before, as far as I can tell, the power plug came de-soldered on board.
Perhaps Asus realized that people who spend money on niche products actually might open their stuff up.
Incidentally, my previous Asus laptop a G73Jh (best buy model) lasted 5 years before the gpu finally aged out. It's actually still functional if you don't count dead (but removeable!) battery. It still works plugged in if I wanted to watch a DVD.
On the old G73, I only changed out the screen, myself, which had developed some issue with the LCD, adding RAM, adding an SSD, and managing to update the video bios without bricking the unit when some vid card update made the original bios incompatible.
I was seriously disappointed in the longevity and user unserviceability of the newer, throwaway design Asus G751 (I say "throwaway" thru a grimace due to the $2k price tag).
But, the upside is that Asus' failure led me try the Microcenter house brand laptop, PowerSpec, which had the best specs per dollar of anything in stock in the DFW area the day the Asus went to BSOD heaven.
The Power Spec is still happily chugging along over 2 yrs later (despite a poorly designed cooling situation that frequently sees the CPU riding the thermal throttle limit of around 98C, despite me running an undervolt configuration and de-tuning boost clock thru Intel's XTU software).
I may have to add Asus back to the list of who to look at for my next laptop. I'm loyal, if I'm treated right. Asus lost me as a customer with the last one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenkalatucka6213 - Hi, you're comment doesn't make any sense.
The plant hasn't been producing electricity. The reactors have been in a shutdown and cooldown status.
Russia didn't blow it up sooner for several reasons.
First, before now, Russia wasn't seriously at risk of Ukraine opening up an attack vector from the direction and area of the power plant.
Second, blowing the plant up earlier would've gone against the notion Russia was pushing that Zaporizhia was annexed by Russia. You don't blow up a nuclear plant in your own territory. Again, recently it's become obvious that Russia will never control all of Zaporizhia Oblast, and never controlled the city of Zaporizhia itself. So, the power plant is again in Ukraine instead of in "Russian Zaporizhia".
Third, blowing the plant up previously might've caused the West to step up support for Ukraine. That has already happened as the West stepped up assistance due to Russia's campaign of bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure during the winter along with recently creating a crisis from blowing up the Nova Kakhovka dam.
Fourth, blowing up the power plant will cause a radiological crisis that will both slow down Ukraine's military if they are advancing near the plant and pull the military into assistance for cleaning and evaluating civilians along with stabilizing and containing the situation at the plant. These effects weren't valuable to Russia until now, as Ukraine is on offense.
So, as your professor, I hope you've learned something! Thanks again for the reply and helping fuel the algorithm!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:13 The really important thing about that 530 billion in green initiatives that they won't tell you: it won't do ANYTHING to prevent global warming or global climate change. Want to know more, get ready for a long read:
Carbon IS causing Climate Change, and it DOESN'T matter. Let me explain...
(Snipped from my reply in another comment thread and reposted because so many people don't understand the actual, bigger picture)
You are thinking of global warming in the last 2 hundred years. The planet has been here 4.5 BILLION years. The earth was already in a warming cycle before humans started burning coal. That is a fact. Don't believe me? Then, tell me why the Earth, across North America and Eurasia, isn't covered in ice.
You do realize that the Earth WAS covered in ice recently (in geological terms), don't you? These are facts you can look up.
You completely missed the part where I said humans have been on earth a very short time and our personal history as well as written history have no perspective.
I'll spell it out. The Earth is, technically, in an ice age right now. Wrap your Global Warming mind around THAT. This is a fact. You can look it up.
55 million years ago, there were trees growing in Antarctica, currently the coldest place on the Earth and covered in an ice sheet. The temperature around the globe was much warmer than today, to the point that winter was warm enough in Antarctica to prevent freezing.
The Earth was hot. Average temperatures exceeded what it is predicted to reach before the next cooling period anticipated in about 50,000 years. These are facts and modeled predictions that aren't disputed. This takes into account human created carbon emissions.
So, even with "Global Warming" (which is a really silly phrase if you think about it), in about 50,000 years the Earth won't be as warm as it was before it entered the current ice age 33 million years ago.
This is why I say that humans have no perspective to understand the scale of time involved in the creation and evolution of Earth's climate. For comparison, the earliest humans arrived on the scene about 6 million years ago, with modern homo sapiens only showing up a mere 200,000 years ago.
Essentially, there has been "Global Warming", a warming of the Earth's climate, since BEFORE humans existed. Humans evolved (or were beamed into existence, whichever your belief) during an ice age. There has also been global warming AND global cooling as mini ice ages have occurred and receded during the current ice age.
About 33 million years ago, the Earth's climate began cooling in what was a devastating "Global Cooling Crisis", except humans weren't around (and wouldn't be around for another 20 million years or so) to label it such. I say "Global Warming" is a silly phrase both because the Earth is in a cool period AND because the Earth is going to enter another period of DECREASING global temperature before it even warms up to the temperature it was before the start of the current ice age. Again, that ice age started 33 million years ago and is ongoing. These are facts and you can look them up.
So, let's get back to the climate, warming, and humans. 25,000 years ago homo sapiens had been on Earth for about 275,000 years but wouldn't begin burning fossil fuels in notable quantities and emitting carbon for about another 24,800 years. At this point, 25,000 years ago (BEFORE humans started "dumping carbon" into the atmosphere) the Earth's climate began warming. Why? What did humans do to cause this warming?
Nothing. Humans didn't do anything to cause that warming trend. THAT warming trend is the SAME warming trend we are CURRENTLY experiencing and which will continue. This warming will continue even if Elon can get ALL of Mankind to stop emitting ALL carbon AND if all the carbon humans ever produced was removed from the atmosphere. Again, facts, you can look them up.
So, are human carbon emissions increasing the rate at which the climate is warming in the current warming trend? Yes, absolutely.
Does the planet care? No, absolutely not. It was going to warm up even if humans didn't exist. The Earth, without any human created carbon emissions, would warm up over the next 50,000 years and then begin cooling again in another mini ice age event during the CURRENT ICE AGE.
If you look at it from a long term (human time perspective), we are actually, currently taking steps to prevent the next great freeze event. However, even with that long term outlook, the planet doesn't care and it will continue to undergo climate cycles BASED ON TECTONIC AND VOLCANIC ACTIVITY.
So, again. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be good stewards of the planet. I'm just saying that the Earth doesn't care what we do. We do not have the technology to manipulate plate tectonics. We do not have the technology to prevent or manipulate volcanic activity. We do not have the technology to prevent solar events or block solar energy as the Earth tilts or wobbles on its axis (which it does and which is implicated in Earth's climate cycles, facts you can verify).
If you made it through this I congratulate you and apologize. I realize this is very long for a youtube comment, but so many people who jump on the "Global Warming" or (more properly "Global Climate Change") bandwagon thinking that we can "save" Earth's climate don't understand the sheer, massive scale of time involved in the Earth's climate development and the constant change or the many forces, besides human activity, and how massive those other forces are that are affecting the climate. The planet simply doesn't care about humans or what we're doing.
Ask the people of Pompeii. The Vesuvius eruption compared to the city of Pompeii (which the volcano buried in ash) is a good analogy to going carbon neutral in the face of ongoing plate tectonics. The good people of Pompeii could have been carbon neutral and the planet didn't care. Sorry, Elon. Not only were they smothered in ash or burned alive, but the volcano spewed more pollution into the air than the people of Pompeii.
This is a particularly good analogy because it gets us thinking about volcanos, their power, their pollution, and the fact that we can't predict or control them. Fortunately, on Earth, we are not in a period of much volcanic activity. However, a nearby neighbor also once was such. Venus, now the hellish poster child of "Climate Change", was once a livable, jungle environment.
That's crazy! What happened?! How did Venus' climate change to having a temperature of 860 degrees Fahrenheit (460 Celsius) and an atmospheric pressure 100 times that of the Earth?!
Volcanos. If humans had evolved (or been beamed into existence, choose your belief), on Venus and never, ever (not even once!) emitted a single carbon molecule into the atmosphere, they and the planet's atmosphere were doomed.
Volcanos. Plate tectonics. A planet's climate changes from the INSIDE out at a planetary scale (tectonics and activity in the core, Mars losing its atmosphere is also an interesting subject) and the outside in at a cosmic scale (external impact).
The Earth has had its share of both of these factors affecting its atmospheric climate. Of course, we don't remember those events because we weren't here, yet. Ask a bird (dinosaur) or alligator if they have any memories passed down from much warmer times (Canadian winters of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, 15 C), 66 million years ago.
Buy a lottery ticket. Humans have been VERY lucky. Of course, we've also not been around but for half a blink of Earth's eye, practically no time at all (humans have existed 0.007% as long as the Earth has).
Once again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be good stewards of the planet's climate. I'm just saying that the planet doesn't care and we don't have the technology to manipulate the ACTUAL causes of climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 the Russian army isn't "massive". Russia reports figures of over 1 million men, but that's across all the varied versions of army that they have. Perun channel has a good presentation on "dictator problems". The Russian army isn't like the US military. There's the army, FSB, and home guard, and border guard. Putin can't have ALL the military under one command because that's too much power that could be used against him.
PLUS, since the Ukrainian SMO in Kursk, Russia is actually having to guard their entire border. Previously, since Russia knew Ukraine or NATO wasn't actually going to invade Russia, they were "cheating" by leaving the border virtually unguarded to have more troops in hot spots.
So, Russia's effective, practical, or realistic army size is actually about the same as Ukraine's, these days. Remember, Ukraine doesn't have to keep units in reserve to prevent either a citizen uprising or military coup (ex, Prigozhin's march). That "massive" Russian army was a thing of WWII and something that Russian leadership still thinks it has and "Russia has more people" is also often misleading in regards to this point.
Besides the Russian army being withered, Russia has near zero unemployment. There's no pool of available people to replace casualties without taking people out of other areas of the economy, including military production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukraine can't use F-16 in Russia because F 16 can't be used within about 50 to 100km of the front lines without risking being shot down by GBAD.
Further explanation: In the Ukrainian theater, aircraft aren't being shot down by aircraft, or at least VERY few. There's no "dog fighting", like seen in the movies. The only air to air combat is in the form of Russian jets hiding over their ground based defenses (GBAD) and lobbing long range R37 missiles at Ukrainian jets from over 100km away. This usually just forces the Ukranian jets to evade and interrupts their mission. It's the GBAD that is actually shooting down aircraft on both sides.
This is why it's imperative that Ukraine receives long range fires (Storm Shadow, SCALP, ATACMS, GLSDB, Taurus - US and Germany are lagging in providing these weapons) so that Ukraine can blitz the known radar, GBAD, and command and communications locations while also using drones along with HARM anti radar equipped F-16s to hunt Russian GBAD to make operating aircraft safer.
Basically, Russia will shoot down the F-16 just as they've shot down existing Ukrainian aircraft. They'll be doing it with GBAD, not Russian aircraft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thetequilashooter1 - Which proper weapons? The longest range strike weapon F-16 carries is the AGM88 HARM anti radar missile (about 80 km) or AGM 84 Harpoon anti ship missile (200km). JDAM ER is about 50 miles. AIM 120 air to air missile is about 50km. You're not doing anything with these weapons worth risking the aircraft over Russia. If you try, it will eat a missile. You lose the F-16 and pilot. You give Russia a propaganda win.
That propaganda is Russia successfully defending itself from the Ukrainian invasion of Russian sovereign airspace. That's the biggest reason nobody who's intelligent would send an F-16 on a suicide mission over Russia, it isn't going to eliminate anything of value equal to the propaganda win for Russia. Remember, those people are brainwashed. Give them a thing to point at and say, "see Ukraine IS attacking us! We need to de-militarize them!"
You could argue that is already happening with the oil infrastructure strikes, but there isn't an iconic "American" weapon fuselage and Ukrainian pilot that can be shown off to rally the Russian zombie hordes.
Weapon systems and risk vs reward aside, how is F-16 going to avoid the incoming surface to air missiles? Chaff and flares only go so far. As soon as the pilot has to start evading, he's dumping whatever ordnance he was carrying, anyway.
I'll be blunt. Your understanding of the aerial situation in the Ukraine war is lacking. F-16 will be less wunder weapon than the tanks unless Ukraine is given the long range fires to blitz known GBAD, radar, and C3.
1
-
@Thetequilashooter1 - The Mig 29 can't carry the Storm Shadow missile. Only the Su 24, out of Ukraine's fighter fleet, is able to carry it. The problem with adapting Storm Shadow to the F-16 is a matter of fitting the missile to the aircraft. Storm Shadow is larger in every dimension and heavier than the AGM 158 that a US F-16 would carry. Obviously, if the "land of glad we're free, sucks other people aren't" would just ship the AGM 158 to Ukraine that would solve the problem. However, the US is increasingly reluctant to send even the long range ATACMS which is much cheaper, plentiful, and easier to use than the AGM 158.
The smaller AGM 84 SLAM might even be in doubt with its 200 mile range.
Having to depend on the the confused USA for ammunition for the aircraft is a huge problem for F-16 in Ukrainian service. The Gripen or Rafale would be much better choices since both the UK and France are now taking the Russian threat to Europe seriously and are willing to give Ukraine the longer range weapons it needs (which, again, the F-16 can't carry and a modification isn't guaranteed to allow such).
The F-16 will be able to make use of HARM missiles, but it's a very dangerous game playing "wild weasel". The S400 missile can be guided from ground launched station from hundreds of km away and guided to the F-16 by an A50 also hundreds of km away. (Ukraine has lost aircraft to this tactic of A50 guiding data linked S400). Further the Pantsir system allows vehicles to data link and can launch with radar off, using radar from another, linked vehicle. So, HARM will see the radar but the F-16 won't be eliminating the vehicle that will shoot at at and another vehicle can turn on their radar if one is knocked out and continue firing missiles at the F-16.
THIS is why Ukraine needs a lot of cruise missiles and other long range fires if they want to do more with F-16 than they can currently do with Mig 29. Ukraine must thin out Russian air defenses if they expect F-16 to do anything other than spend all its time trying dodge incoming missiles of various types or drop JDAM ER from high altitude and hope an S300 or S400 isn't looking their way.
Go look at the first few days of the Gulf War. The US and coalition blitzed Saddam's GBAD, radar, and C3 with hundreds of cruise missiles and hundreds of aircraft of various types and we still lost aircraft to the much older, much less prolific air defenses.
F-16 just isn't going to be much better than the Mig 29 in terms of real practical battlefield impact unless it's supported by the long range fires the West would use.
This is similar to how the Western tanks and IFV couldn't do Western maneuver warfare because Western maneuver warfare doesn't have the ability to clear a minefield.
Ukraine needs aircraft to destroy the artillery protecting the minefields. But, MORE IMPORTANTLY, they need long range fires to destroy the air defenses (and command and communications facilities directing the GBAD) protecting the artillery.
Ukraine has aircraft. They don't have enough long range fires.
F-16 will be nice to have but it's basically a waste of money and training effort without the less glamorous weapon systems that will allow it to function on the battlefield.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Qualified immunity, the concept that police are able to do anything they want, a license to kill, as long as they are on the clock.
In America, police are the equivalent of the occupying British troops in the American Colonies.
This "Tac'ing up" of American police and officers being more focused on aggressive tactics and "terr hunting" is the biggest lasting consequence of the 9/11 attacks. Prior to then, police forces had begun focusing on community policing, crime PREVENTION, and de-escalation. Now, we have these para military police forces that are ITCHING to engage in this style of urban assault to justify the money wasted on unnecessary tactical training and equipment and to assauge their egos.
There are plenty of "no knock" home invasions, including warrants served at the wrong address, that go completely unpunished.
These police invaded someone's home in the dark of night and the citizen defending himself, awoken out of a sleep, and he's a "threat" to the incompetent, abusive occupying troops (aka police).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, basically, Afghanistan is about as good as it's been for past 1000 years. No problem.
The problem with Afghanistan is actually its effect on "Republican" political will in helping people who actually WANT our help and...wait for it...
ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO FIGHT!
Republican politicians were lining up to sell their grandmother to make sure war funding and nation building money was made available for our 20 year failed experiment into taming a part of the world known as "the place empires go to die" because of the difficulties and costs of attempting to tame it and the people living there lacking desire for such.
Fast forward to Ukraine fighting against a Russian invasion of Europe, basically the Cold War turned hot and the "Republican" politicians can't seem to draw the connection between stability in Europe, global and national security, and global and national economic issues.
"Nope," no money for people who actually WANT to fight their oppressor AND where we, the US of Fuckin' A don't even have to send troops to do the fighting (and dying)! "Nope," no point in sending Ukraine the hundreds or thousands of vehicles and pieces of equipment that we have sitting in depots unused and ALREADY PAID FOR that were designed and built to fight Russian aggression.
"Nope," and certainly NOT while Russia is aggressively invading Europe. We, the "Republicans" would rather wait until Ukraine falls and Putin is encouged to invade the Baltic nations (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia -NATO members) so that we can send the equipment ANY-FUCKIN'-WAY, but... With the added bonus of having to also send troops.
It's very ironic and sad that "Republicans" are allowing the Dems to take the lead on global and national security issues. The Dems even invited the republicans to put forth a bill on what they want for immigration and the republicans refused.
The Do Nothing Republicans don't want to besmirch their reputation by doing...something, even if it's a typically right wing issue.
And, a big part of the blame goes to the Afghanis who had no intention of fighting the Taliban when they came down from the mountains, which we all knew they eventually would.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geoffreycodnett6570 - I agree with you, but you don't need to be a professional analyst with the Department of Defense to look at what Russia is doing, especially if they're repeatedly failing at the same thing and then brainstorm why they might do such.
Analysts, commenters, and the Ukrainians have repeatedly pointed out Russia not learning from its mistakes. This is obviously an attempt to learn from what happened along the Kharkiv front. Russia is in a very odd situation of strategic command describing an offensive war and tactical command dealing with a defensive war.
Either way, you don't need to be a professional to look at a behavior or situation and try to come up with reasonable explanations.
Incidentally, when everyone was saying the fight to retake Kherson would be bloody, expensive door to door street fighting, I instead pointed out that such would not be the case. I said that Ukraine would use the same war on logistics approach to make staying in the area untenable. That's exactly what happened.
Ukraine will look to drive south from Zaporizhia to Melitopal to cut off the former Kherson defenders and force them to retreat into Crimea, which Russia is already beefing up border defenses for. Such a wedge isolates the Kherson units, cuts off Crimea, and adds a vector of attack to eastern Ukraine. That move will also prevent Russia from using the retreated Kherson units fully in the Donbas fight (because Russia doesn't care about the Donbas area but DOES care very much about Crimea).
Ukraine wants to give Russia another dilemma: does Russia lose Donbas or the area between Zaporizhia and Crimea first.
This stuff isn't difficult to guesstimate when you look at the situation, even for an amateur.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SgtBeltfed - Prigozhin found evidence of Russia taking 1,000 casualties per day (KIA, WIA, MIA, AWOL), when he occupied the military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don.
First, let's clear something up. "Conscripting", at this point, is a pleasant way of saying press-ganging or rounding people up to send them to fight. Even if Russia is rounding up 20k men per month, they're still not keeping pace with all the losses. Perun channel did presentation on the issue, iirc.
Now, consider that it takes a month to get a new recruit minimally trained and equipped. Based on the 300k mobilization dumping many of those new troops straight into Ukraine with whatever civilian gear they brought along with Russia cannibalizing it's training personnel to fill out combat units before that 300k mobilization, and it's highly unlikely that Russia is able to both "recruit" and give proper minimal training to those fresh troops.
The net result of that is Russian combat capability being severely compromised. Essentially, the 20k troops being rounded up every month are about as combat capable as the DNR, LNR press ganged troops were. Or, in technical terms, "not very".
1
-
@rogerphelps9939 - I think it's probably very optimistic to call new build Russian tanks T-90. The T-90 itself, pre sanctions, was only an incremental upgrade of the T-72 AND, pre sanctions, many of those appear to have been missing the optics, missile defense system, etc that actually made them an upgrade over the T-72.
New build "T-90" tanks are probably on par with the T-72 as far as equipment and capability. There's a video of a Russian armored column containing several BMPs and "T-90"s that gets obliterated by Ukrainians using Leopard 2.
(Jake Broe channel linked the vid about 3 of his vids back. He incorrectly thought it was artillery but a look into the unit posting the vid, 4th tank brigade, pulls up news of them running low on tanks until they were reconstituted with Leopard 2.)
None of the Russian vehicles returned fire. Only 1 tried, unsuccessfully, to take evasive action. So, those "T-90" tanks never saw the Leos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daniellewis1789 - You're right. However, the end result is the same. The planet doesn't care what we do. If we stop emitting all carbon today AND sequester all the carbon we've emitted over the previous 200 years as remove it from the the atmosphere, the Earth's climate will continue to warm, until it begins to cool.
If human activity increases the pace of the warming...wait for it.... The cooling trend will begin sooner. Then, the climate will cool until it begins the next warming trend.
We don't have the technology to influence the things that ACTUALLY affect climate change. Those things are: the distance from the sun as we orbit in our elliptical, solar activity, the tilt of the Earth's axis, tectonic activity, volcanic activity, and extra planetary threats (asteroid impact), and all those catalysts' effect on the atmospheric and ocean currents.
If you want to stop global warming or climate change, forget about carbon, it's almost irrelevant. The planet will pull the carbon out of the air by several processes that occur when sufficient warming causes the events that will begin the cooling phase. Namely, the oceans will cool and take the carbon out of the atmosphere and then keep it out as the water turns to ice.
If you really want to prevent climate change, we're going to need terraforming technology and it will require managing the above mentioned, actual causes of climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, in this conflict where anti aircraft defenses are thick at all altitude and range on both sides, an Apache or Super Cobra would have to be operated the same way if the pilot didn't want to eat a missile.
Typically, it's called low-hi-low where the helicopter flies low to avoid detection and longer range surface to air missiles (SAMs) and hopefully not flying over any quick reacting soldiers with man portable shoulder launched SAMs. Then, the helicopter pops up to aquire the target and launch appropriate ordnance. Then, drops down again to avoid radar guided SAMs and break visual contact to leave the area.
If an Apache tried to target a tank, it would get shot down. The issue is that visual range and engagement range only increase as altitude increases. This leaves the dilemma of trying to get close at low altitude which may give surprise but leave very little room to react to a shoulder launched SAM and put the helicopter in range of those short range weapons. Or, the helicopter could pop up farther away, needing more altitude to see the target farther away at which point, the helicopter loses surprise and possibly shows up on radar, making it vulnerable to those SAMs.
The US has not had to deal with heavy anti aircraft coverage in our recent conflicts. Popping up high enough to do the type of attack that would allow a more precise strike would get missiles fired at the helicopter.
Ukraine is trying to get around that by just popping the nose up enough to lob the rockets towards where they suspect the enemy is.
1
-
1
-
0:03 this is the exact, sad and ridiculous reason the people of Ukraine have been subject to Russian aggression and war crimes.
It actually goes ALL THE WAY BACK to Dubya's war on "terr". The USA made it obvious we were going to invade Iraq under the pretense of WMD. Putin called Dubya and told him not to invade Iraq (a vassel or at least customer of Russia).
Ironically, that was GREAT advice. However, Dubya didn't heed Putin's warning. Why should he? Dubya was president of the most powerful economy and military in the world. Putin was head of...Russia, a very large small and undeveloped country. What was little old Russia gonna' do if Dubya wanted to go invasioneering in Russia's customers or Middle Eastern sphere of influence?
Putin put the phone down and began his evil dictator plotting and planning on how to "Make Russia Great Again".
Part of the plan was to reassert dominance over Russia's "free, independent" but former Soviet neighbors.
After losing in their first in Georgia and only partially succeeding in the 2nd try in Georgia, Putin's "global superpower" ego was really stinging.
This point gets to why Russia very well might continue the MRGA plan and invade Latvia. Failing in the smaller, weaker Georgia DIDN'T prevent Putin from invading the larger, stronger Ukraine anyway...and failing there too.
Putin's stung, fragile, and outsized ego might well drive him to attack a NATO member to prove to himself how strong Russia is.
Yes, Russia will fail. But, it will also involve NATO and US troops fighting off Russia's attack and driving the world dangerously close to WWIII.
It's Putin's mental fragility that REQUIRES NATO assist Ukraine in stopping Russia unequivocally in Ukraine and sending Russian forces back to Russia.
The fact that the United States appears appears afraid of Russia, due to the inaction of so-called "Republicans", makes it all the more likely Putin will actually try to invade a NATO member despite not having the capability to defeat smaller, weaker opponents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump's "peace" plan won't work. We ALREADY tried it!
For 7 months Trump blocked aid to Ukraine by ordering his lap dog, House Speaker Mike Johnson, to block the democratic process and PREVENT A VOTE on aid to Ukraine.
Further, "freeze the front line" was also already tried after the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia broke that agreement, surprise, after using the time to regroup and resupply its "asymmetric fighters" (publicly referred to as "separatists" despite having been transported to Ukraine by Russia).
Finally, we ALREADY tried giving Ukraine "assurances" that their sovereignty and territorial integrity would be secure. That was in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which the US, UK, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Obviously, Russia violated this agreement in 2014 and again in 2022.
All key parts of the Trump peace plan have already been tried and found to not do anything to promote or facilitate peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A big part of the problem with youtube censorship is that it's all done by "bots" or algorithms, software, ai. Then the appeals are handled by bots, IF you can even appeal.
When Warthog Defense channel was taken down, the bots, as you pointed out, said their decision was correct. That was it. There's no human to appeal to. Youtube saw what happened to Twitter when Genius Elon said he didn't want advertisers. Advertisers were perfectly willing to pull advertising.
So, youtube became even more sensitive to content that the YouTube software deems dangerous to advertising.
Essentially, we've been living in a world controlled not by the people or even our politicians but by, rather, controlled by corporations.
Most of us have known that for a while. Now, the corporations are manipulating what news is available on probably the biggest news network, YouTube, by how they handle advertising support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lol. This reminds me of a funny incident.
I was waiting in line with some friends for the valet to bring up the car as a venue was closing.
I look over and notice a cute, slim blonde with her friend waiting for their car. Perfect time to set up a continuation of the evening.
I walk over, say hi and put my hand on her hip (over a decade ago when that wasn't instant pound-me-too offense).
She immediately brushes my hand away and switches on way to good for you bitch mode. She's trying to go strong and chastise me for existing, let alone touching or talking to her.
Her tirade is stifled by me breaking out into genuine laughter. Once I can talk again, I look to her chubby friend and say:
You are an awesome friend. Really. You're a totally cool person for putting up with her (point to her hot friend that didn't like me) crap all night. Guys have been coming up to her all night trying to chat her up and then you have the patience and kindness to just stand there and listen while she complains that the club is dead and there's no hot guys and why can't she find any fun guys to hang out with.
The hot girl's mouth is open, fully jaw dropped as the truth washes over her. The chubby friend is trying, and failing, to control her own laugh...which confirmed my hypothesis.
I tell hot girl that she may not have a boyfriend but she does have a good friend and she should be thankful for that. I turn to chubby friend, bid her good evening and wish express my sympathy to her for what she's going to have to listen to in the car, now.
The look in hot girl's eyes as I called her out was hilarious. I still remember it. Thanks for the video to remind me of the incident.
Oh, the other thing was the look of "thank you" in the friend's eyes for saying all the things that she was just too nice to say to the hot friend, calling our her BS. Good memory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
Russia has been treated like a civilized country since the end of WWII in the hopes that eventually Russia would become a civilized nation. Russia has repeatedly, through the decades and different leaders, proven that Russia is simply not capable of becoming a civilized nation.
The world needs to stop treating Russia as a civilized nation. Russia operates like a very, very large Liberia and Putin is a more intelligent and more crafty Charles Taylor. There's nothing civilized about Russia or Putin.
Europe needs to realize that there are enemies at their doorstep and Ukraine is fighting to keep that door securely closed.
Further, the US is a fickle ally. As a people, we (Americans) are busy "keeping up with the Jones." We're driving ourselves into greater debt to give the wealthy and corporations further control over us while we're busy being too self absorbed to realize that the corporations and very wealthy are continually taking a larger and larger piece of the pie and throwing us smaller scraps while encouraging us to work against each other.
The point being that America is currently in a very pre WWII-esque head in the sand isolationist mode, overall. This is partly due to the 20 years of wasted invasioneering in the desert. We essentially wasted our will to "help the world" on misguided quests to civilize a couple countries in the Middle East that didn't want our help and weren't willing to help themselves.
Sadly, had we not tried "nation building" in the Middle East, there would probably be a lot more will to help Ukraine, a country that's actually a democracy and friendly AND asking for help.
But, in America, we know we have 2 oceans protecting us and nobody is going to attack the USA.
Europe doesn't have that luxury and can't count on the USA. European democracies need to help Ukraine make staying in Ukraine (Europe) untenable. Europe then needs to maintain peace by preparing for war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheBrothergreen - That's an excellent effort of quote and reply!
2 things though, first, unless you're a judge in a court that handles such cases or a trademark lawyer, your "in my opinion" isn't worth any more or less than my opinion. My suggestion of what would have been a more reasonable threat was based on what actually appears to be the franchisee's real issue. It seems like you didn't watch the video youre commenting on.
Tratrademark law doesn't apply the way you imply. The Dominoes franchisee doesn't appear to have issue with sam using the car in videos (youtube doesn't either). The franchisee seems afraid of sam driving the car or going places in public with it that could negatively affect the trademark owners image, related to their business space.
Trademark law would come into play if sam was trying to pass himself off as sponsored by dominos or affiliated with dominos (as a franchisee, which is normally the only way to obtain a dxp car). Trademark law applies if there could be some confusion about if Sam is affiliated with Domino's, which it's clear he isn't and if he's using domino's trademark for profit in a similar business space (ie, pizza delivery).
Trademark law also wouldn't apply in your TV/movie example. They cover logos because that company didn't pay to have that product featured and Dell probably isn't a computer manufacturer in that TV/movie universe. It would break the 4th wall to have Dell logos on things.
The same goes for mythbusters and coke. If coke didn't pay them, it won't be featured. They are obviously not selling coke so, again, trademark law wouldn't apply. If they made their own cola and labeled it Coke a cola instead of myth a cola, trademark law would apply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnnykotletti4614 - You're absolutely right that Germany has sent some valuable aid, including its retired Gepard AA vehicles, Patriot air defense systems, humanitarian, and financial aid.
However, there's amount and there's type.
If Zimbabwe sends Ukraine 100 C17 cargo planes, they'd probably be right up there at the top of the list of countries that sent aid. It would also be mostly useless.
Ukraine's offensive failed because they didn't have the long range fires in sufficient number to target Russian ground based air defenses and command and communications centers.
That is required before trying to clear the minefields because the minefields are protected by artillery that is protected by the air defenses and coordinated by the C3.
Ukraine says they need long range weapons, and they absolutely DO need them. Germany says, "no" while France the UK and the US say "yes".
Germany and Scholz isn't giving the type of aid required to end the war. They are giving aid to allow Ukraine to defend itself from Russian attacks that won't end until either Ukraine or Russia is defeated.
Therefore, regardless of dollar value it has, the ACTUAL value of German aid to Ukraine is less because Germany isn't interested in ending the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "women should cheat" thing is stupid, unless that woman wants to be alone and in the "why can't I find a good guy" crowd.
However, any guy who's ever dated a girl who was codependent will tell you that it's better if she has things to do besides hassle, smother, and just pine for the guy.
I'm going to do things on my own or with my friends. She ought to also have her own hobbies, work, friends, family, whatever to not be trailing after me like an annoying kid sister.
The problem with women and friends and family is that they are always trying to keep each other down and playing jealousy motivated mind games with each other.
So, it's a catch 22. Being with a codependent girl is crap for the guy. If the girl is weak minded and allows the crap her girlfriends and mom/sister are whispering in her ear to take hold, then her behavior will be affected by their jealousy over what she has, a stable situation with a good guy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, NATO never promised Russia anything regarding Ukraine or Georgia (the 2 former Soviet republics that Russia has invaded). Second, the reason Ukraine and Georgia weren't admitted to NATO, as other former Soviet republics had been, was as an appeasement to Russia. However, there was no promise, no treaty. Even recently, prior to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO didn't want Ukraine as a member simply because of not wanting to provoke Putin.
Unfortunately, bullies, evil men, don't need provocation and such people, as Putin, only view inaction as weakness. When did not fighting back ever deter a bully or rapist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Re, people saying sue Patreon or YouTube for censorship...
It's a private platform. Personal Rights, like Free Speach don't don't exist in private places or non governmental spaces, like businesses.
Basically, if a website was forced to host anyone's content, then the business and business owners rights would be violated. One person's Rights don't trump another person's.
The correct response is for the free market and entrepreneurs to correct the problem of one business not wanting customers like Paul. Rumble, supposedly advertises not being the restrictive platform that YouTube (or Patreon, now?) is.
I don't have any experience with it, though.
Paul is using the strategy of using a web hosting company to make his own site. Hopefully, he verified that they won't shut down his website when the bots or Russian sheep inevitably report his page to web hosting company (unless he's got his own server in a server farm).
The real issue here is that it was a Russian bot or pro-Russian sheep that were reporting the content. In other words, these companies are allowing Russia to manipulate their business decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
10:33 re, Russian elite forces in reserve
Well, obviously Russia is going to hold their best regular army troops and equipment back.
First, they don't want that equipment running out of gas and ending up as gifts to Ukraine.
Second, unlike the US during our post Vietnam invasioneering, Russia actually has to strategically plan for a counterattack, even if it's unlikely to actually occur.
C'mon, anyone who's played an online video game has made the mistake of going all in on an attack only to lose because the enemy counterattack was devastating.
Plus, as an added bonus (and downside of being a dictatorship), Russia must maintain its most loyal troops at home during a false pretense operation incase the home population needs to be subdued, by force.
You can't expect a conscript to shoot or beat his grandmother. You need someone hardcore for that work, the work of maintaining power Assad, Saddam, or Xiaoping style.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-On your updated comment, Perun channel had a good presentation on why Russia's larger population doesn't equate to more troops on the battlefield or, even if it did, what effect those troops would have without equipment.
You can see in the Russian family or even military unit "help, please!" vids that Russians are very aware that their men are being sent off to battle without proper equipment, training, or logistics support and are meant to stay on the front line until they die (and, that if a body isn't retrieved, the family isn't getting any compensation, which the Russian government can't afford).
Currently the ignorant, barbaric Russian sheep blame unit commanders or army generals and assume that Heir Fuhrer Putin will surely take care of soldiers if only he's made aware of the misdeeds of the commanders!
As you say at some point, they'll have enough or, a greater threat, the various states in the Russian "federation" will have enough just leave the federation. That's a genuine possibility as they realize that Russia doesn't have the military power to exert control over the states of the "federation".
"Federation" is in quotes because Putin understands the Russian federation to be his Russian Empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I live in TX and travel for work to different major cities, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin.
All have some areas that are empty, as you show in these types of vids, but in other parts of town, there's new office, warehouse, and hotels going up.
Often, unfortunately , these new spaces are advertised as for lease once completed.
Even though TX is attracting lots of immigrants from other states, the fact that new spaces show up without being pre-leased or built for a customer indicates a bubble under a veneer of growth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:02 Kathy is the one who put, not only the ENTIRE 3 decades' of source material into file 13 (the trash), but also everything that he gave them that he'd done towards 7-9.
That said, what George had planned out was probably also crap. It was taking the midichlorians and kicking it up a notch. A story about how humans have no control over their actions and paths are guided by Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, God, and other invisible entities would ALSO have undone the groundwork laid out in the OT.
Saying Vader is just a bad guy because these entities made him be a bad guy is a complete cop out.
So, I think Lucas' ideas would've brought about a prequel trilogy like backslash also.
However, he wouldn't have punked the characters and pooped on the universe. He would've just told a bad story.
It took Kathy's level of arrogance and incompetence to tell bad stories while also punking the original iconic characters and hiring directors that "didn't understand Star Wars" (JJ Abrams) and "didn't like Star Wars" (Rian Johnson) to make generic sci-fi movies (that don't take place in the setting of the SW universe) and just slap the Star Wars logo on it.
Then, Kathy and Iger double down with the "just slap the SW logo on it!" genius for the 2 billion dollars worth of theme park exhibits.
Kathy and Bobby both need sacked. I won't have anything to do with Star Wars, even if they put out something good (as the Mando is purported to be) until Kathy is gone from Lucasfilm and Disney.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@einar8019 there's probably several things going on. First, in the USA people treat cars like toys despite the fact that vehicles are involved in a similar number of fatalities as firearms. So, yes there is a skill and mindset issue that won't easily be solved. We never hear anything about more "car control" AND owning or driving a car isn't even a Constitutional Right, the way owning a firearm is.
Second, the German truck drivers are probably more fairly compensated for their time than US company drivers are and understand not driving the truck like it's a car is included in that pay. In the USA, the industry is constantly seeking to lower the bar for drivers they hire. The trucks get more car like and less involved to drive (no heavy clutch, no shifter, no heavy steering) and the companies put car drivers (people with car driving mindset, see point 1, above) behind the wheel and hope for the best.
3rd, there's a difference in the interstate system and city freeway systems. That infrastructure isn't going to be quickly or cheaply changed. We don't even spend the money to maintain the existing infrastructure, with the tax used to pay for it (tax paid at the fuel pump) not having increased since the 90s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paul. You overestimate the Russian people. Many of them DO believe the nonsense that they're told, such as Ukraine was about to invade Russia and the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was to prevent it.
I have a Russian friend in Ukraine who fled Donetsk during the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Well, now she asserts that she's Ukrainian, not Russian (despite being very "Russian speakers" that Putin says he's liberating).
She still had friends in eastern Ukraine, the areas where DNR were putting people on busses and sending them to Russia and making propaganda vids about how DNR was evacuating Russian speakers ahead of the imminent Ukrainian attack. They genuinely thought Ukraine had some secret weapon that they were going to use to attack the east and then Russia itself.
There are vids where Ukrainians explain that their relatives in Russia don't believe what they say, instead genuinely trying to convince their Ukrainian family that they should stop being Nazis and stop trying to invade Russia. Russian people aren't just saying what's expected. Many, if not most who aren't fleeing, are actually ignorant, uncivilized, barbaric sheep.
In the words of my now Ukrainian (formerly Russian) friend, "there's just something WRONG with them" (referring to Russians in Russia).
1
-
1
-
@laars0001 the issue is this... Hungary and Slovakia are the girlfriend who comes home late with their hair messed up, missing her panties and says she was just out with a friend.
If you listen to their words, you think Hungary and Slovakia want peace. If you look at their actions, supporting Russia, you realize they don't want peace.
There can't be a peace where Russia is rewarded for its aggressive invasion of Ukraine, which is part of Europe. Why?
Because, if you reward a puppy for pooping the rug, it's guaranteed to poop the rug again. Forcing Ukraine to give up territory (and people!) that Russia illegally acquired through its aggressive military action is rewarding Russia. Russia will absolutely conduct another invasion of Ukraine or other countries it perceives as within its sphere of influence.
Ironically, that list includes Hungary and Slovakia. But... They have NATO protection. If Europe and NATO are willing to throw Ukraine to Russia in the face of Russian aggression, it shows that the NATO alliance is a sham and that stronger countries won't risk a war to defend weaker countries. It's those weaker, formerly Soviet countries that Putin wants.
So, if Hungary and Slovakia REALLY want peace, they would suggest that all former Soviet states rejoin Russia. After all, THAT is what Putin wants and what he's fighting for in Ukraine.
So, until Hungary and Slovakia start talking about rejoining Russia OR begin to support Ukraine who is fighting to prevent Russia from capturing European countries, Hungary and Slovakia are the girlfriend who has been out all night with "just a friend", if you take them at their word, but who's really been out all night cheating on you... If you listen to her actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes. I agree.
However, it should be a 2 way street. Arrest the federal agents also and let them go on trial for violating local laws, illegal detentions, failure to identity as law enforcement, operating out of jurisdiction, and whatever else they may be doing.
Yes the local police, politicians and state government didn't handle the situation correctly. They didn't manage to balance quelling the situation without violating rights.
That doesn't give the federal government to invade the state. It's the same thing we got wrong in Iraq. We gave those people freedom whether they wanted it, could handle it or not; forcibly shoved it down their throats.
Now, the federal government is forcing itself on a state, intervening in local matters without the request or approval of the state. That's a legitimate question of State's Rights.
Sure, the state leadership may be a failure, but it's up to the voters of that state to change the leadership, not the federal government.
Ironically, our "law and order" president sees no problem taking charge in this matter but in the greater problem of the covid19 pandemic he flatly said that it isn't the responsibility of the federal government to take action.
Citizens in Red, Republican states should be even more concerned because if the precedent is set that the federal government can invade a state, then there's nothing stopping a Democrat president from doing the same thing.
Recently there's been discussion about 2nd Amendment Rights. This boils down to the same thing: should the federal government be allowed to force itself on a state?
2A people, if you don't want the ATF to come arbitrarily grab your guns via a presidential order, you also don't want the ICE, ATF, FBI, etc invading Oregon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cynthiagarnham1157 - A10 would have the same problem as every other aircraft trying to operate in Ukraine, ground based air defenses.
The A10 is a tough aircraft, including titanium armored pilot seat, dual engines, and actual mechanical backup controls incase of electronic or hydraulic failure.
However, the A10 has never had to operate in a theater where either significant GBAD was present OR where enemy aircraft were a threat.
Trying to use an A10 would get them shot down because their mission profile, low level close air support, puts a target on them from several places (the long range R37 AA missile, the S300 or S400 long range ground based missiles, the PANTSIR close range system, and finally man portable SAMs).
The sidewinder missile system is very short range and wouldn't serve much purpose. Russia was only able to operate helicopters in the southern front at the beginning of Ukraine's counter offensive because they didn't have enough mobile ground based anti aircraft systems.
Trying to use an expensive jet to shoot down a helicopter is silly when a cheaper SAM vehicle can do the same job. (And, the helicopters can potentially shoot back with missiles at close range, still a bad trade, expensive jet for a helicopter.)
Since The A10 hasn't been produced in decades and we haven't yet retired it, there's no way we'd give them to anyone. But, as mentioned, it would even less useful in Ukraine than the F-16 which can be used in several roles that the A10 can't. Also, getting an F-16 to where it's needed, if it's farther away, just requires more fuel and flying faster. That seems to be the name of the game when either side does use aircraft, as low and fast as possible.
Oh, recently the Russians have lost a couple Su25, near Avdiivka in there push for that town. It's similar to the A10 in survivability. Russia has lost several since the start of the war to ground based missiles.
1
-
@martinedwards2004 - OK. You might be right. If so, answer this: if air targets are out of weapons range (meaning that neither F-16 nor Mig 29 can SHOOT at a Russian jet, regardless of radar range because neither aircraft has a long enough ranged air to air missile to reach Russian aircraft that are hiding behind Russian GBAD over Russian controlled territory), what more good is a longer range radar?
While you're trying to figure out a way to answer that, I'll provide some extra facts.
The Ukrainian Mig 29s have a max radar range of about 120 km and the R27 missile with a range of about 60 km.
The F-16 has a radar range of 300 km and the AIM 120B missile with a range of...wait for it...about 60km.
The Russian Mig 31 and Su 34 are lobbing the R37 missiles from up to 200km away, while comfortably cruising over Russian controlled territory and protected by Russian GBAD.
Ok, so you probably came up with answer to the question of how that extra radar range helps if the F-16 still can't shoot at the Russian aircraft.
In light of the facts or weapons range and the air situation in the Ukraine theater, you might need to reassess whatever answer you came up with. Take a moment.
Incidentally, there's evidence that Ukraine has already used the AIM 120, jury rigged, on the Mig 29, as it has used the AGM 88 HARM missile on the Mig 29. However, it appears that trying to actually engage Russian aircraft has gotten at least a few Migs shot down by...take a guess, Russian GBAD (ground based air defenses) as the Ukrainian jets must fly into Russian GBAD range to try. Meanwhile, the Russian jets just fly away from the Ukranians. #ModernAirCombat
Now, there IS a missile in the US inventory that would help the Ukrainians. The AIM 120D. This variant has an estimated range of around 160 km and went into production around 2021. (Note the AIM 120 C is similar to the B except optimized to fit inside the F35 weapons bay.) The newest version of the D model has an estimated max range of between 160 km and "classified". These models are completing testing and aren't in full production yet.
The AIM 120D (entered service in 2021) with its longer range is on par with the British Meteor missile (in service 2016), which has slightly longer range but requires a Gripen or Typhoon (the 2 most likely candidates for Ukraine).
I don't have production numbers of the D model that just recently entered service in 2021 (compared to the B in 1994), but it has not fully replaced the B model in US service among the aircraft that use it (notably, F-16, F/A-18, F-15).
So, the D model would be perfect and actually allow Ukraine to engage at nearly the range the Russians can.
How that relates to the maximum radar range... The F-16 could fire the missile 35 km or so sooner or farther away than the Mig 29. This is hardly the "better in all roles" you're going for. And, those 35 km are actually closer to zero actual km because Ukrainian F-16 won't be able to shoot at Russian jets inside recognized Russian airspace and can't get within range of ground missiles.
As an added bonus, it's longer ranged ground radar that are spotting and tracking the Russian jets anyways.
My point in explaining all this is that the F-16 is a great jet that's going to be less game changing than the great Western tanks. The Mig 29 is on par with capability in the Ukrainian theater with how Ukraine can actually use them. An F-16 is going to perform no better than the Mig 29, despite double the radar range.
Getting back to the AIM 120 D. It would be perfect for Ukraine...except they probably won't get them. The pentagon might surprise us and want real world tests, essentially. However, we have a history of withholding longer range weapons. Even now as Ukraine makes use of ATACMS, which are longer ranged than HIMARS, they didn't get the longer ranged ATACMS.
Why? There's two main reasons.
First, some people are still scared or intimidated by Putin's "I'll nuke you if.." threats. We're afraid to escalate, as if Russia isn't already 100% committed with its conventional forces.
Second, the Pentagon isn't big about passing out weapon systems that we don't have an oversupply of. AIM 120 B, Abrams, Bradley...that stuff is sitting unused in warehouses.
Related to "enough for us" even if nobody is going to attack mainland USA, Ukraine won't get the A-10 because it hasn't been built in decades and can't be replaced in our inventory (and the pentagon or Air Force hasn't been able to convince Congress to retire it). Ukraine initially didn't get ATACMS because they aren't in production and the successor isn't in production yet. We've started sending Ukraine the oldest of the bunch.
Again, the Pentagon may surprise us by sending the D model of the AIM120 to Ukraine for real world "testing". Ukraine seems to think so as they someone recently say how the 160 km range will be very helpful when the F-16 arrives. Raytheon has recently won a contract for more AIM120 production.
So, based on our history of denying Ukraine useful long range systems, I'd not wager on the D model going until Raytheon has producion spun up and Pentagon is comfortable with having an oversupply.
The F-16 is an awesome aircraft. It's the ultimate dogfighter and has grown into a capable ground attack or multi role fighter.
It's just that the F-16, especially without the D model Amraam, doesn't offer Ukraine much more practical capability than the Mig 29, except that F-16 is properly integrated with the AGM 88 anti radar missile and can carry the anti ship AGM 84 missile, along with various other munitions that will be more numerous in Western stockpiles.
Is F-16 good? Yes, of course.
Will F-16 make much difference in Ukraine? Not unless they come up with a combined weapons blitz and sufficient intel to decimate Russian GBAD (which would equally benefit the Mig 29).
With ground based radar doing most spotting and tracking of Russian aircraft, radar range is a minor benefit, if at all, considering that without the AIM 120 D, the F-16 will primarily be used for hunting Russian ground based air defenses, general close air support, and possibly anti shipping work (if we actually even give them the anti ship missiles).
Thanks for the enjoyable thought exercise. Modern air combat, weapon systems, strategic realities, and how very different the modern air war is compared to Vietnam and earlier conflicts is very interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Regarding pronunciation of names, instead of fumbling through them, there are 2 simple options. First, just say "this town that I can't pronounce". Even people, like me, who mostly listen instead of watch, will still get the idea. You could say in what general region if you want to be more specific. "This town that I can't pronounce east of Zaporizhia" or "in the northeast of Ukraine", etc.
Secondly, you can bring up Google translator website. It's free and will have decent pronunciation of most Ukrainian and Russian words. Copy from the source, paste into translator, press the "speak" icon and it will say the word. You can then jot down a phonetic spelling and accent that makes sense to you. In general when trying to pronounce Ukrainian or Russian words the accent is not where you think it would be. So accent it in an unintuitive way or a way that seems wrong and you'll probably be closer to correctly stressing the right syllable.
Again, translator will stress the correct syllable and give decent pronunciation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MoeDoe1 - he said "well over 200k casualties". 200k casualties would INCLUDE around 50k KIA. And, those are the conservative estimates.
Then, there's the possibility that when people say, "Russian casualties" they aren't including DNR and DPR fighters, which are technically Ukrainians or the massive casualties Wagner and smaller private military companies have sustained because, while predominantly Russian, they aren't "Russian military".
Russia doesn't count those categories as Russian casualties.
So, after a year of fighting, 200k isn't high, it's conservative when you consider all the various entities fighting under the Russian umbrella.
The fact is that Russia mobilized over 300k citizens and many were immediately deployed to the frontline in Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from being able to overwhelm Russian lines the way they did with Kharkiv.
The ones that did actually receive training, have been showing up in Ukraine in infantry units instead of whatever jobs, artillery, tank crew, etc that they were trained for.
That is evidence that the Russian mobiliki losses have been very high, if mobiliki trained for other jobs are having to fill gaps in infantry units that the mobiliki who went straight to Ukraine had filled.
Further backing that up is that Russia is doing stealth mobilization after the fallout of the previous mobilization. Russia is recruiting from prisons, extending contract soldier's terms indefinitely, and has implement nonstop conscription instead of the previous twice yearly conscription calls and raised the age of who qualifies for conscription and removed the exemption for university students and graduates.
Russia wouldn't be needing so many extra troops just to hold back Ukraine in the south and make nearly zero progress in the east if they weren't losing troops.
I'd guesstimate total casualties for all Russia affiliated combatants at over 400k with around 100k of that being KIA.
Those numbers may seem outrageously huge compared to what we, the US, experiencesd in 20 years of invasioneering in the Middle East.
However, unlike the massive air campaign followed by a rapid invasion and then counterinsurgency effort, Ukraine is a total conventional war between forces that have some level of parity in combat power (Russia having more troops and vehicles with less regard for casualties while Ukraine has better training and more flexible leadership along with some battlefield tech superiority).
Total casualties for both sides will probably be nearing 1 million after Ukraine's next offensive.
Lots of fighting, lots of dying. Think of it like this, Russian tank crew deaths have been over 6,000. Nobody is surviving as wounded when the tank is destroyed by missile or tank gun hit. To think that some sources are claiming 16k Russian casualties total means injuries and deaths from all other sources, including artillery and direct infantry combat only add up to 10k after over a year is ludicrous. Western estimates had Russia, including Wagner and DNR / DPR incurring nearly that many casualties PER MONTH through February and March.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamalexander9485 -Hi, thanks for the comment. You're right that Russia has enjoyed an artillery advantage for most of the war.
However, let's clear some things up.
First, Russia has not had a 10:1 artillery advantage during the entire war. Indeed, for a period before Western aid stopped flowing, Ukraine held a daily artillery fires advantage. Further, Russias artillery advantage was impacted by its own ammunition troubles as it was reconstituting old Soviet era rounds that are only marginally better than the North Korean rounds (probably also old Soviet rounds) with a relatively high failure rate.
Russia had also had issues maintaining artillery advantage due to shooting out the barrels on its guns from its high fires count early in the war along with Ukraine making artillery a high priority and using Western artillery counter battery radar, drones, and other means to locate the Russian artillery and then it's longer ranged Western artillery along with other long range fires (HIMARS) and drones to eliminate Russian artillery.
All of that put a dent in the Russian artillery advantage from early in the war which you try to indicate has held throughout the war.
Second, artillery is MUCH more effective against troops (and vehicles) out in the open than troops that are in built up earthworks defenses. For the most part, Russia has been happy to oblige Ukraine by sending its troops out into the open.
Third, even when Russia has had an artillery advantage, Ukraine has had advantage in other long range fires (HIMARS, Storm Shadow, drones) which Ukraine uses against military targets instead of apartment blocks, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and other primarily civilian targets.
Actually attacking military targets helps increase troop casualties. Surprise, right?
Russia may have an artillery advantage overall during the war, but Ukraine cares about its personnel while Russia doesn't. And, Ukraine has advantages that mitigate the Russian advantage (fighting from fortified defenses and advantages in other types of long range fires, as a couple).
Thanks again for the comment and the opportunity to clarify some of your misconceptions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:10 fact check "EVs don't put carbon into the atmosphere"
This depends entirely on how their electricity was produced, aka the electric vehicle's dirty little secret.
Regardless, carbon emissions are still insignificant to climate change.
Even at zero human caused carbon emissions, the Earth (which is still currently in an ice age and colder than normal) is going to warm up for about 50,000 years and then begin cooling.
Here's more:
15,000 years ago, North America was covered by a sheet of ice. Where did the ice go??
Around 15k years ago, the ice covering North America began to melt as the Earth's climate began to warm.
This warming started about 15,000 years before humans began emmiting carbon into atmosphere.
Humans are insignificant to the planet.
We just don't live long enough to have the perspective of how little time we've been here compared to how long Earth has been here.
As individuals, we live perhaps 100 years. The average temperature of the planet will be about the same when we die as when we were born. We know what the climate is like in our very brief window of personal existence. It's difficult for us to imagine it being in a constant state of change, both warming and cooling.
The climate has warmed and cooled in cycles for 4 billion years, all without any intervention or encouragement from Man until the most recent 200 years or so.
200 years ago, before man started emitting carbon in significant amount, the Earth was in an ice age period where temperatures are cooler but warming up as Earth heads toward exiting the ice age period of the climate cycle
200 years is completely insignificant to the planet. Today, we're still in the same ice age and, even if no more carbon was emitted into the atmosphere AND all carbon that humans had emitted over the previous 200 years was sequestered and removed from the atmosphere, the Earth WOULD CONTINUE WARNING out of the current ice age.
We do not have the technology to prevent the earth from warming...or from cooling. In about 50,000 years, still in the current ice age, the planet will enter another cooling phase before again warming. It will do this several times before warming out of the current ice age.
Yup, in 50,000 years, global COOLING will be the crisis we need to "save the planet" from. Wrap your head around that if you're hoping "going green" or being "carbon nuetral" will prevent climate change.
The REAL drivers of climate change are the sun, the Earth's distance from the sun as we orbit it, Earth's tilt on its axis, geological activity in the Earth's core and up the crust, volcanic activity that will throw ash into the atmosphere, and extra planetary threats (meteor Impacts) in combination with the air and ocean currents around the planet.
We don't have the technology to affect ANY of the actual things that that cause significant change of the Earth's climate.
Yes, since man has been emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the current warning trend has increased in magnitude.
No, it doesn't matter. The Earth was going to get much warmer than it is today even if humans didn't exist AND, Earth would cool down again and repeat the cycle until the sun expands into a red giant and completely destroys the planet as the star expands outward to occupy the region Earth currently orbits at.
But, don't worry. Before that happens, Earth will its grip on the moon (which is slowly orbiting farther and farther away). That could end life on the planet as it wreaks havoc on how our ocean and atmospheric currents work combined with an increase in the planet's rotation speed (progressively shorter days) as the sun begins to push harder on the planet without the counterbalance of the moon slowing the earth's rotation.
As I said, we don't have the technology to stabilize and maintain Earth's climate.
Humans are insignificant to the planet
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Drones aren't difficult to counter. It's simply a lack of acknowledgement of the amount of jamming systems and shotguns needed to do the job.
In 2014, when Russia invaded eastern Ukraine with civilian proxies (criminals and anarchists transported to Ukraine by Russia and called "separatists") supported by Russian special forces, Ukraine TRIED to respond with columns of troop transports (BTRs) and those columns were decimated by Russian helicopter gunships called in by the special forces supporting the proxy fighters.
For whatever reason, Ukraine didn't send anti aircraft assets, either mobile vehicles or man portable missiles.
At THAT point, those helicopters filled the role of drones. They were fairly easily countered in 2022 when Ukraine was chock full of anti aircraft systems and on alert.
Non "wire guided" FPV drones can be jammed fairly easily IF EVERY VEHICLE AND UNIT HAS A JAMMER.
Shotguns have been used for decades in skeet shooting. It's a simple and effective concept with the drone playing the role of the clay skeet.
Obviously, from a moving vehicle, the shotgun solution would be more difficult but on the flip side, the jammer, with vehicle for power would be better.
The problem is that each small unit needs a couple shotguns and ammo. That's another 10 lbs on top of everything else they need to carry, including anti air and anti armor weapons and if the unit isn't grouped up coverage is limited.
The problem is that while the drone is an ever present threat, it's out of sight and out of mind. The guy with the rifle shooting at you is still more immediate at that point of contact and what's likely more focused on.
While it's a simple item it's unlikely Ukraine has sufficient shotguns and troops willing to carry the extra weapon. That's a supply and mindset issue (at command level) that needs to change.
Now, a jammer and shotgun is as essential as the rifle or carbine and manpad anti air and armor weapons.
The US and China are probably working on EMP systems. For something like a long range drone swarm (think 6th generation "fighters" working as drone carriers and directors), a low yield atmospheric nuclear detonation is an extremely easy way to create an EMP to knock out the drones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AAWT - Right, thanks for clarifying. We weren't saying taking pictures will get you sent to jail. However, it will draw looks and suspicion from people who have seen the results of missiles and drones destroying apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, museums, etc and don't want to be the victim of such an attack.
SOMEONE will end up reporting you to authorities who will investigate and, as you point out, if they find you sending those pictures to Russia, you go to jail for attempted murder, treason, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0:39 Hey, dumbass politician who's playing politics with those dead Americans: they WERE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
The border can be the most secure it could possibly be, mined, patrolled by tanks and helicopter gunships and those people WOULD STILL BE DEAD because they were on the OTHER SIDE of the border.
Plat stupid games, wins stupid prizes. 20 years ago, you could go across the border and have an enjoyable little mini vacation for a night.
Since we started messing around with the cartel power structure, without helping Mexico actually rid themselves of the cartels, WE have created a chaotic situation where cartels vie for power, that has made Mexico an unsafe place to go for the last 10 to 15 years.
Don't take candy from strangers.
Do look both ways before you cross the street.
Don't go to dangerous foreign countries.
If anything the fact that this abduction and murder happened IN MEXICO instead of in the southern United States, shows that the border IS secure.
If border security was an issue, you'd see kidnapping like this on THIS side of the border.
Thank the "tough on drugs" administrations for cutting off the head of the cartel power structure so that 10 heads can pop up in its place, start fighting for control, and create chaos and havoc.
This politician should be ashamed of himself for using these deaths to further his own agenda without even bothering to understand the issue he's talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They just get reported a lot. I get reported a lot, without being a creator, because I'm active in comments about the Ukraine war because I have a friend there and grew up in the age where everyone knew Russia was an enemy of the USA (and they still are, because RUSSIA wants to be not because we want them to be an enemy). Point is, I get bots reporting my comments for "hate speech" if I write something truthful, fact based, and verifiable but that pains Russia in a negative light.
YouTube won't say which comment or what part of the comment was in violation. Youtube won't specify the problem because I'm not actually violating community guidelines. Youtube just tosses out a violation when there's a threshold of reporting crossed.
.
5:50 most of youtube is totally run by software created by helmet wearing, padded playground, trigger warning types. Mxr probably never dealt with a human in any of his communications or channel content evaluation.
ALSO, it's asinine that youtube gives out a violation, resulting in new punishment, for a violation that occured before any previous violation and punishment
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chibnal is an idiot. If you want good New Who, watch seasons 2 and 3, with David Tennant, and seasons 4 and 5, with Matt Smith and Karen Gillan.
I first saw Dr Who as a wee lad when Tom Baker was THE Doctor.
After hearing how bad current Dr Who is and seeing the reboot was available on Amazon Prime streaming, I thought I'd work my way through the reboot seasons.
I skipped half of the 1st season because the shaved head dude was just too different of a lead in from Baker's character that I'd remembered.
The 2nd season brings David Tennant into the role. He simply nails it. I enjoyed most of the episodes with him as The Dr. Also his seasons do offer a good bit of actual Sci-fi storytelling (as opposed to earth-Fi lecturing).
Matt Smith takes over as the Twelfth Dr. It took me all of his 2 seasons to get used to him. He just didn't quite get it right.
However, this Dr's companion was Karen Gillan. She's Scottish and definitely not crrrap! Besides being very attractive, she plays the perfect counter to the Dr. She does a great job of offsetting my disinterest in Smith's Dr.
We also meet Clara, who continues on into the next Dr's season.
Most of these episodes are also the expected Dr. Who. However, Smith/Gillan dous 2nd season, and show runner Moffat's last, begin to run out of steam. The same old, tired villains reappear. Oh, another Cybermen show. Oh, another dalek show.
The 13th Dr is Peter Capaldi. On the nose of it, he looks the part. His portrayal or how the character is written is also just a bit off.
This season also brings in Chibnal as show runner, replacing Moffat. This is the 1st season the earth-fi lecturing became noticeable. It's not surprising since Chibnal is the champion of Female Dr Who. The previous season was running out of steam and Chibnal has no fresh ideas that don't involve earth-fi preaching and lecturing. He starts it off mildly enough. But, I think this 1st season of Capaldi's Dr will be the last season I bother with.
Chibnal is to Dr Who what Rian Johnson AND Kathy Kennedy are to Star Wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@br0k3nman - Whether I realizes a shark has sharp teeth before I stick my hand in it's mouth is irrelevant to the fact that it does.
Whether Russia considered Ukraine a neer-peer enemy is irrelevant to the fact and irrelevant to the West, except that, obviously, the West is stuck funneling aid into Ukraine to help alleviate Putin's miscalculation.
But, none of all that changes the fact that Ukraine, and foreigners who've volunteered, are the only people spending blood to fight an enemy of Europe.
It's no secret that Putin intended to continue on to the Baltics after Ukraine and expected the same response from the West as when he originally invaded Ukraine in 2014, mostly nothing. He was emboldened by the fact that neither the US or UK honored the commitment to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum. Putin probably figured Article 5 from NATO would get a similar non-response to him moving into Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
If he really thought he could push into Poland, he's just nuts. Maybe he thought he wouldn't get any real fight until then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:23 fact check, US weapons equipping Russian Freedom fighters
There were no Bradley's, Abrams, or HIMARS used by the militia. Humvees have been left all over the place by the US. As for uniforms, that's not exactly offensive equipment.
Even the small arms you thought were M4s were probably Polish 5.56 GROT C16 FB-M1, could've been Czech Bren 2, (since you used the stock to identify the weapon) could've been the homegrown Ukrainian manufactured AR platform M4-WAC47, basically an M4 chambered for 7.62 and built in Ukraine, or Ukraine could've given the militia the semi auto AR-15s that Adams Arms sent to Ukraine last year (private company deal for civilian weapons isn't exactly "equipping them with US weapons").
Paul, ANY time you start talking about ANYTHING outside of what you're good with (map updates, especially with insight as to the tactical situation in local areas and small unit issues), you start spouting ignorant nonsense.
When you get outside your wheelhouse, YOU are the best advertising for people to NOT pay to join your website.
There's a thing called "Google". It's a search engine you can run in your web browser and quickly find information about almost anything. Be sure to verify the sources of the information, though.
If you're going to insist on talking about things that outside your basic wheelhouse, map updates and small unit issues, please do at least A LITTLE research first. Otherwise, you sound like an idiot and calls all of your other material into question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leventelikhanecz2258 While you're correct that a sea vessel and truck are very different, my point was that bad things happen when you miss a turn.
While a truck might be much, much smaller than a ship, it's also much larger than the passenger vehicles most streets and city blocks or neighborhoods are designed for.
Missing a turn in a truck can put it in a place that it doesn't fit and can't get out of. Because this fact is always in the back of the driver's mind, it becomes very stressful when directions are bad, streets aren't properly labeled, cars don't allow the truck to safely get into the correct lane, etc and that stress and can lead to bad decision-making.
Plus, if a driver misses a turn, he's going to have to look at the map or reset the GPS ANYWAY. It makes far more sense, from a REAL WORLD safety perspective, to do that as proactively BEFORE it's being done with extra stress and distraction of being off course.
Further, while the vessel on this video grounded and resulted in no injuries, a truck is on the roads and already dodging apparently suicidal car drivers... A task made more difficult for the driver and more dangerous for other motorists if the truck has missed its turn and the driver becomes more prone to making a mistake that leads to collision which is more likely than the grounding to result in injury or worse.
Thanks for the comment and allowing me to clarify.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
30:12 If the US is screwing around, which it appears we are, European countries would do well to start off loading their military equipment to Ukraine, in lieu of future backfill from the US when a more reasonable political situation manifests, otherwise Europe is likely to be using that equipment with their own troops dying instead of Ukraine spending the blood to keep Europe safe from an imperialistic Russia.
Decades ago, in elementary through High school, I always thought it was a funny and sad justification that history teachers would use, "We need to study history so that we don't repeat mistakes of the past!"
Europe and the United States are currently repeating the mistakes that a few people are still alive remember without having to reach for a history book.
"Wait and see, appeasement, they'll stop once they conquer that country because it's part of their natural territory, all that is an ocean away and doesn't affect me."
All of these ideas on why NOT to help allowed, actually empowered, Hitler during WWII.
Showing weakness, not being willing to join the fight when only equipment is required and no lives are at risk shows Russia that the United States and most of Europe is unlikely to aid the smaller nations that are first in line for Russian ambition.
Those countries especially ought to be petitioning the US and larger European political leaders to not only keep aid flowing to Ukraine but to increase the amount and quality lest Europe fall apart and America have our precious economy further impacted by worse global trade conditions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hindsight, shmindsight. The word knew there was risk when that match occurred.
Of course...we'll be saying the same thing, in a couple weeks, about Mardis Gras and Spring break, etc in the US.
So, yes. It wasn't smart for those ladies to group up like that. But, we, in the US are still winning the "who has most covid19 cases" game.
Many people are still having local get-togethers.
Getting back to the ladies fighting the patriarchy: western society is allowing women to legally confuse "regret" with "rape". Look at Weinstein. Sure, he might be a shady guy. However, none of those women accusing him of impropriety either walked away from him or had a problem with his behavior until the part or career benefits he promised never materialized.
At that point, it becomes regret. It's not sexual assault or rape.
It gets even worse. As Joker points out, women can weaponize this. I have a friend who wasn't interested in a girl's advances. The saying is true: hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
He turns her down. She accuses him of rape.
He knows he's innocent and makes his biggest mistake. When he's arrested, he agrees to talk to the local police (hick town that he was working in, as an out of towner) without an attorney...because he's innocent.
In a truly, real world incident of life imitating art, he winds up in a "My Cousin Vinny" -esque moment. The sheriff in the movie says to the accused, "you shot the clerk." The accused, flabbergasted, replies, "I shot the clerk?!??" At which the sheriff considered this a confession.
Since my friend had no attorney present, the "confession" is legally admissible. The state provided defense attorney has no interest in trial and railroads my confused, scared, freaking out, jailed friend into a plea deal.
It's truly bizzare and absurd. And SCARY. This shit really happens guys.
Just like the goobs who don't fear covid19 because they don't know anyone who's had it: just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't out there, possibly just around the corner.
Stay safe. Practice social distancing...from females, unless you have reliable witnesses present or a camera recording.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I suspect that the original Russian Freedom brigade attacks into Russia were cover to insert Ukranian operatives, trainers, handlers, reconnaissance, etc. So, Ukrainians have been dispersed within Russia for over a year. With the recent Kursk SMO, even more Ukrainians were inserted into Russia. Remember, Russia is only "at war" along the front and trying to pretend everything is normal in most of Russia. So, there isn't the same level of alertness against espionage as in Ukraine.
So, while the partisans inside Russia may well be Russian, Ukrainian operatives are all over Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@travismiles5885 - Normally, I'd agree with letting most of world figure itself out. We had no reason to invade Iraq in Iraq 2, Saddam's only desire was to keep being the big fish in his little pond and he didn't tolerate Al Qaeda dipping their toes into his pond. Afghanistan could've been done as soon as the Talis ran for Pakistan and Al Qaeda was broken with the occasional bombing if the weeds started to get tall. Afghanistan and Iraq had no larger impact on NATO or world stability.
Ukraine does have such an impact because, just like Putin had no intention of stopping with Crimea and Donbas, he had no intention of stopping with Ukraine.
Sticking our head in the sand and pretending everything is OK until Putin pushes into a former Soviet state that's now NATO won't save us money. WW3 will be much more expensive in money, lives, and way of life.
So, destroying Russia's military capacity for the price of 8 cents a day per each American and some unused tanks and APCs sitting in storage is a bargain. Even more so since Ukraine is doing the bleeding and dying instead of our guys. It's terribly unfortunate that we wasted 20 years of public good will helping a bunch of backwards ingrates who wouldn't help themselves.
Unlike the Afghanis, Ukraine is helping themselves AND fighting to prevent WW3 while defending their own country.
The problem is that we can't control what Russia does, only what we do. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine which was Putin's first salvo at Europe.
Look at a history book or two. Appeasement doesn't work with a fascist dictator bent on rebuilding an empire. That's exactly what Putin intended and what he wanted as his legacy.
In 2014, the Western world did nothing, despite the US and UK having agreed to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Putin viewed this inaction as a green light to begin planning his conventional invasion of Ukraine with Ukraine being a speed bump on his way into the other former Soviet states or Warsaw Pact nations.
Basically, Ukraine is spending BLOOD to prevent Putin from doing something world endingly foolish. That something would be invading Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia (which share a border with Russia) and Poland, all of which are NATO members and all of which Putin sees as part of the Russian Empire.
If we had spent the money and lives to honor our word in 2014, we'd have spent less money but spent lives and been on the brink of WW3 by directly confronting Russia.
Now, with Putin continuing his initial invasion, it's essential he be stopped before he attacks the 3 nations listed above because that would trigger NATO Article. Article 5 would draw every NATO member, including the US into military conflict with Russia.
We're essentially having to spend the money now in order to save lives AND money AND way of life by telling Putin "No."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NDAsDontCoverIllegalActs - Hi, thanks for the question. I think people who are "uninvolved" shouldn't add to a legal case. If YOU were ACCUSED of something, would you want to be tried by social media or in a court of law?
Remember, because of our history as a British colony where justice was "guilty until proven innocent", the Founders of our country created a justice system where people, including YOU, are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
People who aren't related to a case shouldn't be able to lend weight to either side with their comments. That's part of the reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Justice should be unbiased.
Again, I'm not saying Weinstein, or Cosby, didn't commit crimes. I'm saying that the "victims" in the Weinstein case appear to have willingly engaged in the quid pro quo he offered, based on their own words.
As far as convicted criminals who are let go because of improper police or court procedures, this angers everyone because these incompetent individuals (the police and court personnel or judges) are essentially devaluing our justice system and making a mockery of it.
These officials or officers should be held accountable and removed from their position if they are unable to properly follow the laws and procedures so that they aren't the catalyst for future problems. That's the real takeaway from any case where there is evidence to convict, as in Weinstein's case also.
You mentioned Cosby, specifically, likely because it also involves sex crimes and a man versus women scenario. However, I'd like to point out that Lady Justice wears a blindfold also because every crime is equal in that either the accused is innocent or guilty and the type of crime or the gender of the defendant and plaintiff are irrelevant to "severity".
In simple terms, someone isn't more likely to be guilty (in the eyes of the justice system) because the alleged crime is more severe. That is a very key component of the justice system.
Unfortunately, it's one that we've done a bad job with, based on how many black men have been exonerated after modern forensic technologies and techniques were discovered and applied to past convictions.
So, to directly answer the Cosby question, I think it's terrible when the criminal justice system fails society because police and court personnel don't take their position seriously enough to follow proper procedures and ensure that guilty people are punished and innocent people are set free.
1
-
@NDAsDontCoverIllegalActs Thank you for taking the time to read my answer and for asking thought provoking questions.
As I said, I have a problem with the criminal justice system failing. That's true whether it's failing to release someone who is actually innocent of what they're accused of (and I'm NOT saying that's the case with either Weinstein or Cosby, and Weinstein appears to have committed crimes based on how the law is written) or whether it's letting go people who actually committed crimes.
Since I'm not part of the criminal justice system and not related to the case, the most I can say about the Cosby situation is that if he committed crimes, which evidence appears to indicate, then it's a travesty he's being set free.
I chose my wording there specifically.
Also, the same applies to Weinstein. To clarify for the people upset about that issue and my original comment, I'm not saying I think Weinstein is innocent or that it's good he's released. In THAT issue, I think it's important that society considers whether or not both parties that contribute to a situation ought to be held accountable if one is going to be held accountable.
Obviously, in the Cosby case, as you point out, the victims agreed to dinner and didn't agree to being drugged and whatever happened when they were no longer conscious or of clear mind. So, that's much more cut and dry and follows the example that a previous commenter gave relating to whether victims caused rape (obviously not).
Again, with regards to the Weinstein issue, I wanted to point out that "regret" shouldn't equal "rape". That's a time bomb that can cause injustice to anyone who's ever engaged in a mutually consensual sexual relationship.
And, of course, since I'm just a person on the internet who types comments too long for most people to muddle through and not a policy maker, politician, or actor within the criminal justice system, none of what I say holds any real value.
I'm just trying to encourage people to actually think instead knee jerk. Part of this is because I have a friend who was railroaded by the justice system after being what appears to be falsely accused. He couldn't afford a "good" lawyer and the public defendant provided basically didn't want to put in the effort to defend him, pushing for a plea deal. My flippant guess is that it was his turn to lose a case or he didn't want to miss tee time with the prosecutor or he succumbed to the mindset of "I'm not getting paid enough for this" and shouldn't have been doing a job where someone's reputation and livelihood is on the line.
As I've said a few times trying to answer the Cosby question, it's a travesty when justice fails either the guilty who are set free or the innocent who are punished.
It's also something most people don't consider or think that could never happen to them. It's like the mentality that someone wouldn't have been arrested if they didn't commit a crime. Eye witnesses, police, and prosecutors are human and all humans are prone to make mistakes (eye witnesses are actually notoriously unreliable in regard to fact and police testimony is considered gospel in court despite the fact that they are too often caught lying).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, fact check. The mistake that led to Saddam Hussein's death was 100% American. After Iraq 1, all Saddam wanted was to keep being the big fish in his little pond. His aspirations of dominance over his smaller neighbors was gone. Also, being that he was the only big fish in his pond, he didn't allow Al Qaeda to operate or train in Iraq, which actually made him an erstwhile ally of the US in that regard.
If Saddam had been killed in the first Iraq war, after invading a smaller, weaker country that had Western support, then I'd agree with your statement.
As it is, Dubya (Real. American. Genius), demanded to see raw, unvetted intel that showed Saddam had WMD. The intel agencies gave him what he wanted. The Genius Level Thinker and leader of the free world then started a war which led to civil war and 20 year occupation and resulted in Iraq becoming more allied with Iran than with the US, all on bad, raw, unverified intelligence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stuartburns8657 - You're partly right, but not how you think.
First clarifications, Russia doesn't count anyone that isn't Russian military as a casualty and then starts editing the numbers down from there. That means Wagner and other private armies, the LPR and DPR, etc are all not counted as casualties by Russia when injured or worse.
Ukraine (and most Western countries) count anyone fighting with, for, or on behalf of Russia as a "Russian casualty" when injured or worse.
So, part of the casualties are those other groups, but the majority of Russian combat manpower is still people from Russia.
So, where you're correct is that to Russians in civilian and military leadership, "Russia" is "Moscow and St. Petersburg." So, you're right that most Russians in Ukraine are not from those cities.
All the rest of the world's largest country is just subjugated people who are there to serve the benefit of "Russia" (Moscow and St Petersburg).
1
-
1
-
8:15 Russia coping
I think it was Perun that did a good bit on the Russian command structure concept of "vranye" (вранье), lies.
Basically, everyone is lying and everyone knows everyone is lying but as long as nobody calls anyone out on it, everything is fine...unless you're in a war, apparently.
So, while tunnel vision might be part of the problem, there's also the issue of the report from the front saying "the attack went well. We had heavy losses, but forced the enemy to retreat.".
Command then sends another group to finish off the "retreating" enemy. Of course, since the enemy is still dug in, the attack fails, again and again.
Your statement, "they keep doing the same thing over and over again and failing and everyone knows it except them (the Russians)."
The Russians DO know it, at least at the operational level if not the command level, but everyone agrees to not give any credence to reality, everyone is lying about what's going on and nobody's calling anyone out on it. So, it's impossible for commanders to know what's going on unless they're there. That's the concept of вранье. It's why an absurd amount of high ranking personnel, generals, are on the battlefield. They know that the reports they get are BS.
Look into Perun channel vid on the subject of lies in the Russian military (and society).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArchOfficial - this is a really good point. Ukraine has an actual training pipeline. When newly trained men get assigned to combat units, they aren't completely clueless and poorly equipped. They also aren't reconstituting nearly decimated units almost fully with fresh trainees.
Russia, on the other hand, has no actual training pipeline. They canibalized their training command to have more men to send to their death in Ukraine before calling for mobilization (this was a last ditch measure for more men after actual reservists had been called up, again before the mobilization).
Russia has 1 training center for its army that doesn't have capacity for the mobilized citizens even if there were actually anyone there to train them.
Supposedly, Russia, after injecting several 10s of thousands of untrained mobiliki into Ukraine is actually now trying to train the other 200k to 250k (estimates vary) because the first tranches sent to Ukraine were decimated or surrendering so quickly.
However, just like you can't pull a combat unit out of thin air, you can't pull military trainers out of thin air. I suspect that mobilized "training" is going to be civilians trying to teach them basic first aid, how to dress for winter, basic hygiene habits (which, based on abandoned Russian positions, they don't know these things).
There isn't going to be anything like the level of training new troops in Ukraine get with experienced troops (both Ukrainian and western volunteers) teaching new troops discipline and basic tactics in addition to how to keep healthy when out of combat.
The training pipeline in Russia would probably take at least 6 months to rebuild and then, you'd have a system robust enough to train troops that were as bad as the ones that Ukraine has already been defeating.
The war in Ukraine is unsustainable by Russia. So many people think Russia has a huge population it can draw from and can overrun Ukraine at any time. The fact that Russia had to grab people off the street during mobilization shows how much interest average Russians have in fighting (and dying) in Ukraine. Now that there's more mobiliki calling home and telling the truth of the situation, it's even less motivation for citizens to volunteer to die in Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MustardSkaven - honestly, Prigozhin having access to nuclear weapons is no different than, possibly safer, than someone like Trump having them, where a childlike fit could spell doom.
Prigozhin, madman and war crimes proponent that he is is also a pragmatist.
I'll use this example. If Saddam DID have WMD when our vaunted intelligence services gave Dubya intel that allowed him to believe Saddam did have WMD, it wouldn't have made anywhere in the world less safe.
Saddam had no interest in anything outside of being the big fish in his pond.
Prigozhin is a pragmatist and wanted to have Donbas as his private duchy. Now that such isn't possible, he's looking for power in Moscow. If he gets it, he will only be interested in keeping it and staying alive to enjoy it.
Prigozhin knows, and has been recently saying (to the Kremlins ire) that Russia wasn't under any outside threat.
The last thing Prigozhin would want to do if he grabs power in Russia is do anything to cause the international community to remove him, playing with nukes would do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The comments section shows me that there's a lot of hippies and commies in Colorado. Ya'll should go back to snow boarding and getting high and let the adults handle the real issues.
"There is no security and no safety in the appeasement of evil."
- President Ronald Reagan, 1986
"Simple minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly."
-Reagan, 1983
Make no mistake, (Russia under Putin) is no friend of the United States. He has thought of every US president he's dealt with as beneath him (even Trump) and a pawn to be played with and taken advantage of. Putin is trying to build a 3rd Russian Empire. That's ironic because he talks so much about hunting Jewish Nazis in Ukraine. Yet, Putin is a fascist dictator bent on building a 3rd Russian Reich (meaning realm or empire).
The war in Ukraine is essential to avoiding WWIII. Inaction in 2014, the United States and United Kingdom not upholding our obligation under the Budapest Memorandum to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nuclear deterrent, was viewed by Putin as a green light to continue subjugating Ukraine in 2022. If Russia is not stopped in Ukraine and removed from all of Ukraine, then Putin will see that as a green light from a weak and timid West to continue his empire building. Unfortunately for people who want peace now, such continued subjugation of Russia's neighbors would lead to direct confrontation with former Soviet republics that are now NATO members and who, like Ukraine, have no wish to be part of a Russian Empire.
Fighting the war now is the cheaper alternative and the one that doesn't risk American lives. Appeasing Putin, forcing Ukraine to accept "peace" while Russia is an unwelcome guest in their home, would result in Putin continuing his empire building and the invoking of Article 5 of NATO which requires all NATO countries to intervene if one is attacked. If Ukraine is given to Russia for peace now, we, Americans, will be on the ground fighting in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland within the decade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@desktopdesign7196 - I do agree that Chris micromanaging is not ideal. However, he's the guy who's name is on the project. Even with a smaller budget, anyone would tend to be under pressure from that to deliver a good product. He's a software developer learning to be a CEO and manager. A dedicated manager might have been better, like in Linus' case (Linus Tech Tips), where he started doing really stupid out of touch things because he didn't want to be CEO and just wanted to be a creative. Or, it could've been another headache and hassle and wasted expense (how do you hire a CEO when you don't know what your budget is?). Who do you trust with your project?
As for development time, knock about half of that time off if they didn't have to maintain a playable demo. Games aren't developed as integrated pieces for a reason. You break 1 thing in 1 area as part of the process and it cascades. In normal development, it doesn't matter because that broken thing isn't hooked up to anything else until later when all the parts are working.
If you look into the history of CIG, 3 years were spent building the company. In the early years, there was a lot of "can't be done" attitude among some employees which was actively slowing things down. Of course something is impossible if you tell yourself it is.
Re-building the engine and tools is an on-going process. Chris himself said that if he knew the budget would've been so large, he would've just built an engine and saved that time and headache and avoided having to deal with a lawsuit from a bankrupt vendor.
CIG is at about 600 employees. So, within your 500 to 1000 guess, but barely.
Is it taking longer than initially expected? Yes. Is it taking longer than some people who want to play an actual game now can stand? Yup.
Will there be a functioning actual game at some point? Probably, especially considering SQ 42 is feature complete.
Is it a scam? No.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bilembofredy728 - Well, it's too late now. Putin is obviously suffering from delusions, thinking he can rebuild the "glorious" Soviet Empire as his legacy in his late years.
Ukraine just recently became a modern army, as far as tactics go. If the UK and US intervened directly, now, we'd mop the floor with the Russian forces so bad that Putin would probably default to the Soviet Era doctrine of using tactical nukes to clear out an area before sending in disposable ground troops to secure the wasteland. Putin is not sane. No sane leader decides he can just annex an independent country.
Had the US and UK intervened in the 2008 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russians only limited specs ops units in the Donbas area, eastern Ukraine that were training and calling in air support for the "separatists" (used on quotes because the original "separatists" were actually Russian proxies, not Russian speaking Ukrainians that Russia sent to the area, criminals and anarchists.
The west could've fought them and Russia could've had deniability that they were Russian proxies and no direct US/Russia fighting would've occurred. Russia would've had an out.
The same is true in Crimea, where the "polite people" or "little green men" didn't have any insignia on their uniforms. They could've been wiped out and Russia had an out, could've claimed they were terrorists or not sanctioned by Russia.
Because the US and UK did basically nothing that we should have under the Budapest Memorandum, Putin interpreted that as a green light for the current invasion.
In hindsight, we can see how he left himself an out by not sending in uniformed Russian troops directly. He was expecting western pushback.
1
-
1
-
@TommyTCGT - Ah, the "nonstop shelling of Donbas" fallacy.
Stop being a sheep and do the math for yourself.
In 8 weeks, Russia turned suburbs of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Mariupol to rubble. If Ukraine had been shelling Donbas for 8 YEARS, there would be no buildings left standing, no homes or places to work and, therefore, no people (because nowhere to live or work).
I have a Russian speaking friend who's still in Ukraine and fled Donetsk during the 2008 Russian invasion of Ukraine. She has family who stayed in the Russian proxy occupied Donbas. They didn't say anything to her about being shelled, ever in those 8 years or even hearing about shelling. Either it didn't happen or the people being shelled thought it such a minor inconvenience as to not be important enough to ever mention.
If you can't talk to people who were actually there during the last eight years, just do the math on how many buildings would be standing after 8 years of shelling. The answer is zero and Donbas would be empty several years ago.
Since Donbas isn't empty and the only significant artillery damage occurred when the so-called separatists were shelling the cities as they moved west, from the Russian border, into those cities. The original "separatists" were foreigners (not Russian speaking Ukrainians), criminals and anarchists that Russia sent to the area with special forces troops to guide them.
Ukraine wasn't shelling Donbas since 2008. If it was, why did no place in Donbas look like Mariupol? Exactly
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1