History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Ha, I was in elementary school, in Florida, close to an Air Force base, during the Cuban missile crisis.

Duck and cover!

Then you probably remember these things being stockpiled in a back room at your school.    There were also barrels full of soda crackers, as if we could all live on those during a nuclear winter.  This one is an alley find from a year or two ago, I figured it would be good garage decor.  

In reply to 02Pilot :

I have so many questions.

Did they really try to use the fear of nuclear war to sell paint? Did they also imply that keeping your house neat was a good way to help survive a nuclear war?

But even more, did they really detonate actual nuclear bombs expressly for this purpose? That's either the most obsenely expensive commercial ever made, or the most clever and stupid use of an already-scheduled nuclear test ever.

I'm not in the habit of trusting Newsweek lately, but this just ran across my news feed: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-black-sea-missiles-putin-gerashchenko-harpoon-1708449

I know we have shared targeting information, but this seems like we are upping our involvement from a tactical perspective?

In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :

It is possible the anti-ship missile posturing is being done to convince the Russians to not blockade grain shipments out of Odessa.  Playing a bit of a longer game trying to reduce the risk of famine in Africa and elsewhere.

That title is a bit alarmist to say the least.  The story is about the potential to supply Harpoon anti-shipping missiles.  It does not appear to be the US doing the attacking.  I am not sure this is a huge change from what we have already been doing, but I am sure Russia would thinks so (everything is to them). 

As far as desperate move to free up stored grain.  I can certainly see the reasoning.  I think the bigger concern may be all the crops that were never planted though.

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not in the habit of trusting Newsweek lately, but this just ran across my news feed: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-black-sea-missiles-putin-gerashchenko-harpoon-1708449

I know we have shared targeting information, but this seems like we are upping our involvement from a tactical perspective?

I think this is one of those "How big can the weapons which we supply really be?" things. I would not be surprised if it's already being done, nor would I be surprised if this was floated to see what Russian reaction would be. If your navy had already lost three major ships in a land war to a country without a navy, and the biggest, baddest military hardware in the world could be aimed at you, with nearly no repercussions to them from the rest of the world, especially as the only way to hurt them involves ICBMs, then you might change direction quickly.

The US is actually in a really good place for this. Not to be crass, but the Russians can't hurt us really without unleashing nuclear hell on earth. We're making money every time we send Ukraine a weapon, Sweden and Finland are going to decrease NATOs reliance on our dollars and hardware, and we're gaining bonus points around the world very quickly after losing them in Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if some shrewd thinking in the White House or Pentagon realizes that this is the time both to send bigger weapons to really knock Russia back on their heels, make more money selling these weapons systems, all while showing the world that we can really bring the fight if we have to, all without firing a shot or risking American lives.

My own personal view is obviously far more humanitarian and liberal (small "l"), but I think the two align well here.

In reply to 02Pilot :

You know everyone that dies in a nuclear attack needs a tidy clean house to still be standing.

Stampie said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

You know everyone that dies in a nuclear attack needs a tidy clean house to still be standing.

Can't you hear it now?

"Francine, dear, you must keep a tidy house. It's not for me, you see, but for when those damn Ruskies start lobbing bombs. Now dust the shelves and handle my laundry. Be a darling and fetch my slippers and three fingers of the good gin."

My inner conspiracy theorist marvels at the timing of the end of US operations in Afghanistan and the start of hostilities in Ukraine with regards to the US military industrial complex... 

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

My inner conspiracy theorist marvels at the timing of the end of US operations in Afghanistan and the start of hostilities in Ukraine with regards to the US military industrial complex... 

I think this is an Occam's Razor situation where Russia thought the US reputation in the world had been weakened enough, and the EU and NATO's unity was in shambles, so it was time to finish the job they started in 2014.

tuna55 said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not in the habit of trusting Newsweek lately, but this just ran across my news feed: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-black-sea-missiles-putin-gerashchenko-harpoon-1708449

I know we have shared targeting information, but this seems like we are upping our involvement from a tactical perspective?

I think this is one of those "How big can the weapons which we supply really be?" things. I would not be surprised if it's already being done, nor would I be surprised if this was floated to see what Russian reaction would be. If your navy had already lost three major ships in a land war to a country without a navy, and the biggest, baddest military hardware in the world could be aimed at you, with nearly no repercussions to them from the rest of the world, especially as the only way to hurt them involves ICBMs, then you might change direction quickly.

The US is actually in a really good place for this. Not to be crass, but the Russians can't hurt us really without unleashing nuclear hell on earth. We're making money every time we send Ukraine a weapon, Sweden and Finland are going to decrease NATOs reliance on our dollars and hardware, and we're gaining bonus points around the world very quickly after losing them in Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if some shrewd thinking in the White House or Pentagon realizes that this is the time both to send bigger weapons to really knock Russia back on their heels, make more money selling these weapons systems, all while showing the world that we can really bring the fight if we have to, all without firing a shot or risking American lives.

 

My own personal view is obviously far more humanitarian and liberal (small "l"), but I think the two align well here.

Just a bit of trivia.  The biggest nuclear weapon made and tested was by Russia in1961.  A Hydrogen bomb weighing 66,000 pounds 33 feet long  3300 Hiroshima's worth of destruction and the mushroom cloud escaped the stratosphere.  They had plans for one twice as big. But lacked a plane to carry it. 

tuna55 said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I have so many questions.

Did they really try to use the fear of nuclear war to sell paint? Did they also imply that keeping your house neat was a good way to help survive a nuclear war?

But even more, did they really detonate actual nuclear bombs expressly for this purpose? That's either the most obsenely expensive commercial ever made, or the most clever and stupid use of an already-scheduled nuclear test ever.

Yes, they used the Soviet nuclear threat to sell paint, and to encourage social responsibility, conformity, and cleanliness. The filming was done during regularly scheduled testing at the Nevada proving grounds. Here's a short history of the film from the Library of Congress.

eastsideTim said:

 

I think this is an Occam's Razor situation where Russia thought the US reputation in the world had been weakened enough, and the EU and NATO's unity was in shambles, so it was time to finish the job they started in 2014.

I agree.  Russia/Putin made a massive miscalculation - but who would have thought a TV comedian turned president would rally his people so well?   

Regardless of how or why it started, the weapons makers are still laughing all the way to the bank.

tuna55 said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not in the habit of trusting Newsweek lately, but this just ran across my news feed: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-black-sea-missiles-putin-gerashchenko-harpoon-1708449

I know we have shared targeting information, but this seems like we are upping our involvement from a tactical perspective?

I think this is one of those "How big can the weapons which we supply really be?" things. I would not be surprised if it's already being done, nor would I be surprised if this was floated to see what Russian reaction would be. If your navy had already lost three major ships in a land war to a country without a navy, and the biggest, baddest military hardware in the world could be aimed at you, with nearly no repercussions to them from the rest of the world, especially as the only way to hurt them involves ICBMs, then you might change direction quickly.

The US is actually in a really good place for this. Not to be crass, but the Russians can't hurt us really without unleashing nuclear hell on earth. We're making money every time we send Ukraine a weapon, Sweden and Finland are going to decrease NATOs reliance on our dollars and hardware, and we're gaining bonus points around the world very quickly after losing them in Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if some shrewd thinking in the White House or Pentagon realizes that this is the time both to send bigger weapons to really knock Russia back on their heels, make more money selling these weapons systems, all while showing the world that we can really bring the fight if we have to, all without firing a shot or risking American lives.

 

My own personal view is obviously far more humanitarian and liberal (small "l"), but I think the two align well here.

Putin forgot Russia can't outspend the United States.  Or, to put it in the words of Captain America, "I can do this all day long..."

stroker said:

tuna55 said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not in the habit of trusting Newsweek lately, but this just ran across my news feed: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-black-sea-missiles-putin-gerashchenko-harpoon-1708449

I know we have shared targeting information, but this seems like we are upping our involvement from a tactical perspective?

I think this is one of those "How big can the weapons which we supply really be?" things. I would not be surprised if it's already being done, nor would I be surprised if this was floated to see what Russian reaction would be. If your navy had already lost three major ships in a land war to a country without a navy, and the biggest, baddest military hardware in the world could be aimed at you, with nearly no repercussions to them from the rest of the world, especially as the only way to hurt them involves ICBMs, then you might change direction quickly.

The US is actually in a really good place for this. Not to be crass, but the Russians can't hurt us really without unleashing nuclear hell on earth. We're making money every time we send Ukraine a weapon, Sweden and Finland are going to decrease NATOs reliance on our dollars and hardware, and we're gaining bonus points around the world very quickly after losing them in Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if some shrewd thinking in the White House or Pentagon realizes that this is the time both to send bigger weapons to really knock Russia back on their heels, make more money selling these weapons systems, all while showing the world that we can really bring the fight if we have to, all without firing a shot or risking American lives.

 

My own personal view is obviously far more humanitarian and liberal (small "l"), but I think the two align well here.

Putin forgot Russia can't outspend the United States.  Or, to put it in the words of Captain America, "I can do this all day long..."

That's really true. We can outspend, and more importantly but very related, we can outmanufacture anyone. That's how WWII was won, really.

In reply to tuna55 :

Imagine what would happen if the United States actually took manufacturing as seriously as the Japanese, Koreans and Germans? (Efficiency,  accuracy, pace, innovation) 

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

In reply to tuna55 :

Imagine what would happen if the United States actually took manufacturing as seriously as the Japanese, Koreans and Germans? (Efficiency,  accuracy, pace, innovation) 

Please never let the US take manufacturing as seriously as the Germans.

In reply to eastsideTim :

LOLOLOLOLOLOL oh I hear you.

tuna55 said:

stroker said:

 

Putin forgot Russia can't outspend the United States.  Or, to put it in the words of Captain America, "I can do this all day long..."

That's really true. We can outspend, and more importantly but very related, we can out manufacture anyone. That's how WWII was won, really.

I heard the aid we have / will have supplied Ukraine is now approaching the yearly defense spending in Russia. 

(I suspect this is a guess though since I don't think anyone really knows how much they spend)

aircooled said:

tuna55 said:

stroker said:

 

Putin forgot Russia can't outspend the United States.  Or, to put it in the words of Captain America, "I can do this all day long..."

That's really true. We can outspend, and more importantly but very related, we can out manufacture anyone. That's how WWII was won, really.

I heard the aid we have / will have supplied Ukraine is now approaching the yearly defense spending in Russia. 

(I suspect this is a guess though since I don't think anyone really knows how much they steal from their budgets to spend on superyachts and homes in capitalist pig nations)

fixed

Just wait'll we're able to 3D print drones...

In reply to stroker :

First we 3D print 3D printers, the we 3D print the world!

Another absolute gem from Kasparov in WSJ dated May 16

 

Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine has again been scaled back amid courageous Ukrainian resistance and international support in the form of weapons, financial aid and sanctions against Russia, Mr. Putin and his oligarch mafia.

As pleased as I am by this, it’s hard not to be wistful about what might have been—and how many lives would have been saved—had such actions been taken to deter Mr. Putin years ago.

Instead, we have a conflict with global ripples affecting everything from Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas to the food supply of several African nations. This is the high price we must pay to stop Mr. Putin now to avoid an even higher price later—the eternal lesson of appeasement.

There are still signs that some Western leaders haven’t yet learned that isolating Mr. Putin and responding to him with strength is the only way to make lasting progress. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke last week about the need to negotiate with Mr. Putin, to give him face-saving off-ramps. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called his Russian counterpart Friday to urge a cease-fire, potentially leading to the sort of “frozen conflict” Mr. Putin loves because he simply ignores the restrictions while consolidating and rearming.

I’ve long said that Mr. Putin is a Russian problem and must be removed by Russians. But the West needs to stop helping him. Every phone call that legitimizes his authority, every cubic meter of gas and every barrel of oil imported from Russia is a lifeline to a dictatorship that is shaking for the first time.

If the goal is to save Ukrainian lives, as Western leaders say, then the only way to do it is to arm Ukraine with every weapon President Volodymyr Zelensky wants as quickly as possible. A cease-fire that leaves Russian forces on Ukrainian soil would only allow Mr. Putin to continue his genocide and mass deportations under cover, as he’s been doing since he first invaded in 2014.

There are also those who openly take Mr. Putin’s side even now. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is blocking a European Union ban on Russian oil imports, a supply that is putting tens of billions of dollars every month into Mr. Putin’s war machine. Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is threatening to disrupt Finland’s and Sweden’s accession into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, although it’s likely he’s looking to gain something for himself, as usual. In the U.S., Sen. Rand Paul has held up a new emergency financial-aid package to Ukraine—money, by the way, that would mostly be spent with American suppliers.

On May 9, President Biden signed the first lend-lease bill since World War II to speed aid and armaments to Ukraine. It was perfectly timed for Russia’s Victory Day, the annual celebration of the Nazis’ defeat, which has been turned into a perversion of patriotism that frames anyone or any nation that opposes Mr. Putin as a “fascist.” The real fascism is in the mirror as hundreds of thousands of Russians fleeing for the exits realize.

As for the 144 million Russians remaining in Mr. Putin’s police state bombarded with increasingly toxic propaganda for more than two decades, they have hard choices to make as Mr. Putin’s facade of stability crumbles and defeat in Ukraine looms. A dozen recent attacks on Russian military-recruiting offices are an indication of what might be coming.

The original Lend-Lease Act of 1941 allowed the Soviet Union to fend off Hitler’s invasion. Now the army boot is on the other foot if the U.S. reclaims its honorable heritage as the arsenal of the free world to help Ukraine defeat Mr. Putin’s invasion.

The bill is also a sign that Mr. Biden is finally shaking off the legacy of his days as vice president, the crucial period when Mr. Putin went from aspiring autocrat to full-blown dictator as the free world sat on its collective hands. When Mr. Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, Western leaders said it was better to maintain economic and political ties rather than punish him. This is the engagement policy we were told would eventually liberalize Russia—and China—by tying it to the free world.

Barack Obama epitomized the trend. As a candidate, under pressure from John McCain’s campaign, he condemned Mr. Putin’s incursion into Georgia. But President Obama was quick to make clear to Mr. Putin and other dictators that America would be leading any remaining freedom agenda from behind. The now-infamous “reset” renewed Mr. Putin’s credentials as he cracked down on the vestiges of Russian civil society. In a 2012 debate, Mr. Obama’s mocked Republican challenger Mitt Romney for stating, accurately, that Russia was America’s top geopolitical foe.

This attitude led to 2014, when Mr. Putin was emboldened enough to cast off any democratic trappings in Russia, invade Ukraine, and 2016, when he interfered in British and U.S. elections. In Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed ahead with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, increasing dependence on Russian energy when the opposite was needed. Now it’s being done abruptly and painfully. Perhaps Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel could tour Kyiv together to see the damage they helped cause and to apologize to the Ukrainian people.

Mr. Putin’s corrupt and incompetent military is good only at brutality and massacring civilians, but has had eight years to entrench in the occupied east that Ukraine’s forces are now approaching. We will see how committed Ukraine’s allies really are as the war moves into a new phase in which defense is not enough. Will they help Ukraine win, to destroy Mr. Putin’s war machine, and to restore all Ukrainian territory? Will they keep sanctions in place to increase domestic pressure on Mr. Putin and to let his mafia know that there is no way back to the civilized world for them and their families while Mr. Putin is in power?

The free world that won the Cold War is remembering how to fight and rediscovering the values that give meaning to the fight. That’s bad news for Mr. Putin and the other dictators watching closely, from Beijing to Tehran to Caracas. Ukrainians are fighting for their lives and their nation, and for the free world. Let it not be as a proxy, but as a partner.

Mr. Kasparov is chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative

tuna55 said:

The free world that won the Cold War is remembering how to fight and rediscovering the values that give meaning to the fight. That’s bad news for Mr. Putin and the other dictators watching closely, from Beijing to Tehran to Caracas. Ukrainians are fighting for their lives and their nation, and for the free world. Let it not be as a proxy, but as a partner.

 

Damn.  He nailed that landing!

Also I have nearly zero idea how Orban got re-elected...  On behalf of almost every Hungarian I know:  "We know.  We're sorry"

As like three of you know, I am a comedian. We are weird broken people whose brains operate differently. We deal with stress and trauma differently. We cope differently. Humour is a defense mechanism, a way of processing our fears and feelings. A way of rationalizing the world around us. The way we get away with telling the truth.

One of the funniest comedians I've ever had the pleasure of sharing a stage with is a Russian immigrant. When the war started he quietly disappeared for a few weeks. Then he came back, with this set:

 

I think it's very funny, and a little sobering. I think it's worth a watch.