Putin really wants Trump back in the White House Russia really wants Donald Trump to be the next US President, judging by reports from American government agencies and now Microsoft's threat intelligence team. Based on Redmond's latest research on foreign trolls' election interference efforts, the Kremlin has shifted its focus to fake news aimed at discrediting Vice …
"Russia really wants Donald Trump to be the next US President, judging by reports from American government agencies and now Microsoft's threat intelligence team."
Remind us again how Microsoft is just a software company and not just a sidearm for the 3LAs.
So everyone in this group/team is a "Microsoft TIT" , that's nothing to be proud of.
Twitter? The place that is mostly left leaning?
"Twitter users are younger, more educated and more likely to be Democrats than general public"
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
This notion that Twitter is the domain of the "far right" is the sort of juvenile perspective I'd expect from the BBC
Anyone with an IQ higher that a potato knows what sort of user froths over their keyboard on Twitter. Mr Lineker says hello BTW.
This is an interesting take as you think Trump likes Putin with this supposed 'praising'. I would hazard a guess that you think people who you don't like or who hold opinions you disagree with are not as clever as you are because you must be smart for having the correct opinions. A very classic trap. What Putin did with the eastern parts of Ukraine was actually very clever, especially when he waited for a weak US leader in President Biden before really kicking off.
This is the same attitude that saw people laughing at Trump when he warned Germany about their reliance on Russian gas. "Trump is so stupid!!!1" Well Germany is in recession and their manufacturing industry is in serious trouble. And before anyone tries to claim otherwise, I work for a very large German manufacturing company and my German colleagues are on reduced hours and some are on basically a furlough scheme.
> Of course Putin wants Trump in power. For those who missed it link:
Donald Trump: “By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened.”
Its the only chance Putin has. Putin gambles that he only has to last until Trump is in power and then he hopes Ukraine is done. However it seems with recent events, Ukraine is doing reasonably well by themselves without American weaponry. Of course the war would be over far mor equickly with western long range missiles, but it appears Americans for all their movies and guns are completely yellow.
WHo would have guessed.
arguably, dicatatorships have gained a hard to beat 'argument': as long as they have plenty of nukes and means to deliver them 'everywhere', the only thing that stops them is whether they themselves want to stay alive in case of a 'nuclear exchange'. Given that the West values life so much more, I can't imagine a scenario that would stop Putins from taking a gamble and releasing a nuke or two, just to prove their red lines are there. After all, would the US _really_ start a conventional war against Russia and bomb their bases into oblivion if the Russians nuke Kyiv or some smaller city, to make a point? Would the US risk the escalation into an all-out mushroom war for that? There's prior art (why die for Danzig), and at that moment in history the stakes were nuke-less, yet that call was very much appealing.
Unless they don't actually have the means to deliver them or any confidence that they still work.
There was an interesting article last month suggesting that precision targeted conventional weapons have gotten to the point that the US could carry out a first strike on all other nations nuclear sites.
what about the mobile sites & submarines
We don't have any of those. Oh? You mean Russia? They do. But trust in 2-Tier/Free-gear Kier. Russia's 'red lines' can be crossed with impunity because they won't retaliate. Except for the very obvious one where Ukraine crossed a red line and Russia invaded.
But Starmer and the other 'leaders' of the Ukrainian death cult can't see the reality on the ground and that Ukraine is losing badly. The Bbc is also increasingly clueless-
Ukrainian military expert and retired colonel Kostyantyn Mashovets warned his fellow Ukrainians they had to be "psychologically prepared" for the loss of Selydove, Toretsk and Vuhledar in the eastern region of Donbas.
"I would love to be wrong," he wrote on Facebook.
"But from the information I have... this is a very likely scenario of events in the near future."
In the very near future because Ugledar is pretty much encircled and Russian forces have entered parts of the town, as they have the others. Ugledar is one of Ukraine's 'fortress' towns in Donbas and when it falls, Russia will be able to capture more territory. Perhaps disturbingly, Ukraine withdrew their front-line troops, replaced them with territorial units and told them to fight to the death so the town isn't captured whilst Ukraine's WLB is posturing in the US.
I'm curious how you would have had the US be "first" in WW1 or WW2. Or Ukraine.
While I do not agree, a case could be -- and has been -- made that the US should not have been involved in any of those wars. They were not at US boarders. All three were clearly "European problems" (and "Asian problems", until Japan thought an attack on the US would be a great idea).
If the US gets involved, they are the world's bully. If they try to stay out, they are "yellow and lets everyone else do the fighting". Often in the exact same conflicts. Often described those ways by the same people.
Both the UK and France had mutual defence treaties with Poland.
As the UK (and the US) have with NATO.
Although Clause 5 of the NATO charter has only ever been activated by the US on 12/9/01 by Bush Jnr.
Let's be clear. Putin is not crazy, but his behaviour is that of a psychopath. He's rational but he does not care about anyone or anything. If the West spends money and weapons now to deal with him it won't have to spend lives later. Keep in mind that Russia, America and Israel are nuclear powers, yet that did not cause them to prevail in Afghanistan, Viet Nam and Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebannon respectively. Russia is a nuclear power. So what?
Putin has no valid territorial claim on Ukraine. It was and is an unprovoked invasion to force Ukraine rejoining into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics circa 1989. Poland, Estonia, Latvia all understand exactly where dobbie is going with this. It will take more than a sock to free him of his obsession. :-(
NickH:
I'm curious how you would have had the US be "first" in WW1 or WW2. Or Ukraine.
cow:
America has denied UKR Nato membership for years, because America is scared shitless about Putin.
Even today America is the last remaining power which is preventing long range western missiles to be used again R.
America has denied UKR Nato membership for years, because America is scared shitless about Putin.
What is this 'Nato'? Do you mean-
https://www.nato.int/
So NATO? If so, countries cannot join NATO whilst they have an active border dispute or conflict..
Even today America is the last remaining power which is preventing long range western missiles to be used again R.
What missiles would these be? Ukraine already has SCALP, Storm Shadow and various other long range missiles. Leaked German messages said they don't want to send their Taurus missiles because they would need German operators. If NATO troops are operating the missiles, then those nations would be party to the conflict, and Russia has said they would respond in kind, either directly or asymmetricaly, ie attack British, French, German or US assets possibly via proxies, just as NATO is using Ukraine to attack Russia. Russia has said it would regard this as an act of war, and leave Russia in a state of war.
Is WW3 something you really want? All because of some 2-bit comedian?
eel: So NATO? If so, countries cannot join NATO whilst they have an active border dispute or conflict..
cow: UKR has tried to join NATO for over ten years. There are many public statements from UKR political officials asking this v question.
He wiki article clearly gives examples way way before the current invasion. Hardly a shock given your past support for Russia and fud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
eel: Is WW3 something you really want? All because of some 2-bit comedian?
cow: Showing your Russian troll hat again ?
cow: UKR has tried to join NATO for over ten years. There are many public statements from UKR political officials asking this v question.
But the answer remains the same. Ukraine can't join NATO while there's an active territorial dispute, which there has been ever since the coup in 2014. This was just reinforced by a statement from Ukraine saying that territorial integrity is an absolute 'red line' for Ukraine. This includes restoring the 'Ukraine Peninsula' rather than the more common term 'Crimean Peninsula'. But that was also one of the reasons for the coup, ie NATO wants Crimean for its own NATO base, not Russia.
So basically the current Ukrainian 'victory plan' is to drag NATO into the conflict by escalation or provocation. There was a rather large explosion at an ammunition storage site deep inside Russia, which shows Ukraine has the capability to hit those kinds of sites already. But there's also speculation that that attack might have been launched from a Baltic state. If so, and Russia can prove it, then Russia can strike back without triggering NATO's Article 5 because that state may have been the aggressor.. But at that point, it doesn't really matter because if NATO does want to engage Russia directly, it will, and then we're back to WW3 territory. If say, Latvia or Lithuania gets glassed, who fired first becomes a bit of a moot point.
jell:
But the answer remains the same. Ukraine can't join NATO while there's an active territorial dispute, which there has been ever since the coup in 2014
cow:
Exceptions are made all the time, to treaties, if there was a will, NATO could give a deadline and allow Ukraine to join.
jell: But that was also one of the reasons for the coup, ie NATO wants Crimean for its own NATO base, not Russia.
cow: So what if they do ?
THe entire world would rather UKR had Crimea for any purpose rather than R. Nobody likes R, everybody in Central/Eastern EU hates the Russians.
jel: If so, and Russia can prove it, then Russia can strike back without triggering NATO's Article 5 because that state may have been the aggressor..
cow: Theres nothing stopping America from changing the rules, and everyone else in NATO will follow. We saw it in IQ and AF, America "wrote" their own rules and "encouraged" enough UN countries to "FOLLOW" them.
Nick: They were not at US boarders. All three were clearly "European problems" (and "Asian problems", until Japan thought an attack on the US would be a great idea).
cow: Australia declared war a few days later after Poland got invaded in Sep 39.
Australia is even further than USA is too UKR.
Excuses excuses...
USA is bombing the Houthis today, because we all know the H are far less in strength than the R, and thata shows the level of yellowness America has. THey only attack first when the odds are basically 99.9999% in their favour, if the oppoonent has a 1% chance they are yellow.
Intriguing. In WWII, the US joined before anyone else on the American mainland other than Canada. Those who joined later include Mexico and Brazil. Most of those on outlying islands who joined were, like Canada, part of the British Empire/Commonwealth or the French or Dutch equivalent. Several countries switched sides during the war, mostly after the US joined.
And the naval war in the Pacific was largely American until near the end; some Australian forces were at sea, but mostly American until British Pacific Fleet arrived near the end. The Dutch surface forces were mostly eliminated in early 1942, along with the British surface forces in the area; Dutch and British submarines ranged widely for most of the war, and British sea-borne commando were quite busy. On land, Australian forces did a lot of fighting. And in China it was mostly Chinese while in India and Burma it was British Empire/Commonwealth, mostly India.
I don't see how anyone can look at what the USN did in the Pacific and say that the US let everyone else do the fighting.
In Europe a rather considerable fraction of those fighting were American, ranging from the various air forces to naval forces to ground forces. The US equipped the Mexicans and Brazilians, in action in Italy and the Philippines, and the French. American production allowed everyone else, especially the Sovs, to fight; the entire 1943 Studebaker truck production line was focused on providing trucks for Russia, including most of the trucks that the famous Katyusha rocket launchers used. America provided tanks for the Sovs; the SOvs didn't like the M3 Lee/Grants ('graves for seven brothers) but loved M4 Shermans, the first Sov tanks into Berlin were Guards M4s. (Britain liked M3s and used a lot of them against Japan.) The Sovs also loved the P-39 Airacobra, flown by a lot of top Sov aces.
One wonders where you get your 'facts'.
James:
Intriguing. In WWII, the US joined before anyone else on the American mainland other than Canada.
cow: Exactly.
Yellow, Canada had the balls to declare war in September 39.
Even little NZ which was barely a million or two in 39 declared war in Sep 39.
~
James: Those who joined later include Mexico and Brazil. Most of those on outlying islands who joined were, like Canada, part of the British Empire/Commonwealth or the French or Dutch equivalent. Several countries switched sides during the war, mostly after the US joined.
cow:
My original statement was that America is yellow because they always join big fights late. You just confirmed it. If you want me to say the other countries in the Americas are yellow, then sure they are.
The facts remain, when it really counts America is yellow.
James: One wonders where you get your 'facts'.
cow: My facts are true, theres nothing untrue about what i said.
Britain, FR, AU, NZ, CA did declare war on Germany in Sep 39. America didnt for several years.
Thats all true, the problem is you cant accept the truth.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were all Dominions, so linked closely to the UK ('the mother country'), there was no such constitutional link between the US and the UK.
Hence the UK declaration of war on 3rd September was followed by Australia, Canada and New Zealand on the same day, and South Africa the day after, each of the Dominions making the choice (or not, if they had chosen so) to support the UK, but starting from the default position that they would be supportive.
The US viewed the UK as a (potentially) rival country, and had no reason to be supportive of the UK.
Acting in one own's country's (perceived) self interest is not implicitly 'yellow'.
It should perhaps also be noted that the US didn't actually declare war on Germany; rather, Germany declared war on the US. However, this occurred after the US had, in taking actions supportive of the UK/Allies, stretched the definition of neutrality to beyond what it could reasonably be.
EDS:
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were all Dominions, so linked closely to the UK ('the mother country'), there was no such constitutional link between the US and the UK.
COW:
The UK didnt have a constitution back then and doesnt have one now...so your claim is completely bogus.
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/constitution/
> A constitution is the set of principles and rules by which a country is organised and it is usually contained in one document. In the UK a constitution has never been codified in this way; instead, the various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which, taken together, govern how the UK is run are referred to collectively as the British Constitution.
EDS: Acting in one own's country's (perceived) self interest is not implicitly 'yellow'.
cow: Bullshit.
Nobody including the USA could have benefitted from a madman like Hitler who unfortunately was also scientifically advanced with many advanced weapons.
It was only a q of time before Hiter would have threatened USA, which he eventually did anyway.
The real answer is America was yellow and hoped others would fight and drain Germany.
~
EDS: It should perhaps also be noted that the US didn't actually declare war on Germany; rather, Germany declared war on the US. However, this occurred after the US had, in taking actions supportive of the UK/Allies, stretched the definition of neutrality to beyond what it could reasonably be.
cow: The word yellow perfectly summarises this.
Even When Germany was occupied in a massive war with UK and USSR, America took a long time before it had the balls to actually make a formal declaration.
James: I don't see how anyone can look at what the USN did in the Pacific and say that the US let everyone else do the fighting.
cow: I originally said the USA is always last. THe USA was a world power before WW2, they had parity with the RN since the 1920s Washington conf.
Im not denying that USA did fight ive simply stated from the beginning a single statement, that the USA joins major fights LATE. 2 years late in ww2.
unfortunately, this is not true. (Ukraine... by themselves). Everybody (in this conflict, and in general) does lots of posturing and Ukraine is no exception. On top of US military aid, there's lots of financial aid to prop the country against collapsing, a sizeable chunk coming from the US. Should Trump turn off military tap, and tighten the financial one, Ukraine would start losing ground at much faster rate, and the rest of the West, i.e. Europe, Canada, Australia, are unwilling to increase their share to cover for the Yanks. Every side in this war wants to get away with it at the lowest cost to itself and hopes there are no consequences of this short-sightedness and if they are, hopefully not on my watch.
All this doesn't mean that without US help Ukraine faces collapse, but they might lose another 20% or more of their territory. And people. Neither is an asset that you can recover / rebuild quickly. Fortunately, the posturing and bluffing applies just as well, if not more, to Russia so, despite best US efforts, Putinland might collapse rather... unexpectedly. Or again, maybe not, nobody really knows.
unfortunately, this is not true. (Ukraine... by themselves). Everybody (in this conflict, and in general) does lots of posturing and Ukraine is no exception. On top of US military aid, there's lots of financial aid to prop the country against collapsing, a sizeable chunk coming from the US. Should Trump turn off military tap, and tighten the financial one, Ukraine would start losing ground at much faster rate, and the rest of the West, i.e. Europe, Canada, Australia, are unwilling to increase their share to cover for the Yanks.
I think it's a bit more complicated. So there are the two parts to this problem-
1) Supplying cash. This is propping up the Ukrainian economy and allowing Ukraine to pay wages and pensions for state employees, along with stuff like fuel, electricity, food, restoring its energy grid etc etc. So cutting off that cash would be an economic collapse with wages not being paid, lights going off, water not running, no fuel or food and more protests against the government. That would probably lead to another regime change, or Ukraine would need to divert more resources to crushing internal dissent rather than fighting the DPR, LPR and Russia. But cutting off cash would also mean Ukraine can't pay its armed forces..
2) The military effect. So Ukraine is constantly demanding more weapons, and more than the West can supply. If it doesn't have the weapons or ammunition, if obviously can't fight. If it can't pay its soldiers, then obviously they may be more reluctant to fight. Morale is already very low and the combination of lack of both military and financial support would just make that worse. This would also add to the prospects of civil unrest, up to and including elements of the armed forces doing their own regime change. But dumping more weapons and ammunition into Ukraine is not much use if Ukraine doesn't have the cannon fodder that's willing or able to use them. Ukraine's already been struggling to recruit, and if the economy collapses, more Ukrainians might try to leave the country.
Plus there are already a lot of Ukrainians that have already done this, and Ukraine doesn't seem able to attract them back. As the economic and military situation in Ukraine continues to get worse, they're even less likely to go back. This is also a problem for (mostly) Europe. So the EU can't really send Ukrainians back, knowing they'd face almost certain death. But supporting Ukrainians who've been displaced is also costing the EU (and UK) a lot of money and causing unrest within the countries that have had a large influx of Ukrainians. If/when Ukraine collapses, that migration wave will inevitably increase putting even more costs and pressure on the host nations.
Which is one of those huge political challenges. The longer Ukrainians live abroad, the more likely they are to integrate into their host countries and the less willing they may be to return to Ukraine. Even though for Ukraine to remain a viable state, it needs those people back. So hopefully at some point there will be a viable peace deal negotiated that makes Ukraine an attractive place to live again. Which is something the Russians may have been more successful at. The SMO is, after all the continuation of a civil war that started in 2014 following the coup. An estimated 1.2m or so Ukrainians fled to Russia, some of whom have since returned because Russia has been busily rebuilding homes and infrastructure that had been destroyed during the civil war, or SMO.
Fortunately, the posturing and bluffing applies just as well, if not more, to Russia so, despite best US efforts, Putinland might collapse rather... unexpectedly. Or again, maybe not, nobody really knows
Problem is the best efforts of the US and West have been to try and destroy 'Putinland'. So suppose we give Ukraine long-range missiles. They use those to try and kill Putin and succeed. Like it or not, Putin is very popular in Russia. So the gamble is any replacement for Putin won't be as bad, or worse and won't seek revenge. Or we manage to collapse Russia, trigger regime change and civil war which leaves Russia's nuclear weapons in the hands of.. someone. Plus there is also the small matter of Russia's stated nuclear doctrine which is if there's an existential threat to Russia, it launches. What triggers those launches is unknown, but might be along the lines of the 'Letters of Last Resort' carried on board the UK's missile boats. If you don't hear from the duly designated government, execute launch orders. Some units of Russia's strategic missile forces might chose not to, some might launch. Always the danger with attempting political or military decapitation strikes against a nation with a LOT of nuclear weapons aimed in our general direction.
this is simply not true, the US, as in early 1990s, are hugely scared of Russia's collapse, it's the only reason they don't step in more. They mainly panic (perhaps rightly) abou the nukes spreading across God-knows-how many little Putins, 2nd headache is chaos, and there's prior art: post-1918 collapse of Russia, now with the nuke sauce. Plus, they might fear that Russia's collapse would embolden China to step in, with some sort of 'stabilisation mission', to save the peaceful population of East Siberia, etc.
Best scenario for the US is Russia, but weak, corrupt Russia. The longer they bleed their human resources and finances, the better, never mind those little peoples like Ukraine, etc., that get caught in the process. But then, this is wishful thinking, nobody was able to control the chaos in 1918 and then in 1991, and if / when it happens again, it will burn at its own rate, with or without US efforts to put it out.
...
So suppose we give Ukraine long-range missiles. They use those to try and kill Putin and succeed.
- this is an absurd supposition, given the range of those missiles. Yes, and what if Putin turns up at Crimea or Mariupol, at the dead of the night again, and they find out about it and use what they already have in their arsenal to kill it? Hell, I mean, in theory, why not suggest that Ukrainians CAN might try to use one, or perhaps 5 of those F-16 to fly a suicide mission, becausewhynot. They certainly CAN try.
...
there is also the small matter of Russia's stated nuclear doctrine which is if there's an existential threat to Russia, it launches
- attack on Putin (or Moscow) would be an 'existential threat to Russia'? Given the length of that covid table, methinks Mr President would really like to live as long as possible, and the risk of nuclear escalation makes this future much less predictable.
That said, I do not exclude Russia firing a nuke at Ukraine if / when they start losing the war badly, and I very much doubt there's going to be any significant response from the West to that, even though they claimed such a response would be 'measurable'.
- this is an absurd supposition, given the range of those missiles. Yes, and what if Putin turns up at Crimea or Mariupol, at the dead of the night again, and they find out about it and use what they already have in their arsenal to kill it? Hell, I mean, in theory, why not suggest that Ukrainians CAN might try to use one, or perhaps 5 of those F-16 to fly a suicide mission, becausewhynot. They certainly CAN try.
Yours is an absurd response. I've asked this question a few times. What 'long range' missiles are we expected to give to Ukraine, and what exactly do they intend to do with them? The vague answer is 'attack targets deep inside Russia'. I suggest you look at a map, and the distance from Ukraine to Moscow. Plus Ukraine has already attacked Moscow using drones, and targets further away than Moscow.
Suggesting something that could be launched from an F-16 limits your options, as does any practical benefit given Ukraine is already running out of those aircraft.. And more importantly, pilots.
- attack on Putin (or Moscow) would be an 'existential threat to Russia'?
Assassinating Russia's government or head of state could be. Which is why I mentioned 'Letters of Last Resort'. Can't get in touch with the government? Open letter, follow instructions, maybe launch. And if the government isn't functioning, there may be nobody to countermand any launch orders.
That said, I do not exclude Russia firing a nuke at Ukraine if / when they start losing the war badly,
Luckily for the world, there does not seem to be much sign of that happening. Ukraine launched its misadventure into Kursk, and those forces are currently being eliminated. Meanwhile, Russia has been steadily gaining territory and control over logistics and supply routes in the East of Ukraine. It also just announced mobilising another 250,000 troops. Ukraine can't match because it doesn't have the people to do this unless it can somehow persuade their 'Monaco Battalions' to return to Ukraine and be thrown into the meat grinder.
Ukraine is getting increasingly desperate though, which is dangerous and probably high time they're dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table. Which may happen now the US has seen the much hyped 'Victory Plan' and might decide Ukraine's WLB has become too much of a liability. Maybe he'll be given the option to retire to one of his overseas properties, maybe he'll just be tragically killed in a 'Russian missile attack'.
Jellie: Yours is an absurd response. I've asked this question a few times. What 'long range' missiles are we expected to give to Ukraine, and what exactly do they intend to do with them?
cow: Ukraine would take out all the other arsenals , bridges, refineries and more within range of UKR just like they are trying their best to do so now.
cow: Ukraine would take out all the other arsenals , bridges, refineries and more within range of UKR just like they are trying their best to do so now.
OK, but still doesn't answer the question. What 'long range' missiles could we give Ukraine that they could actually use, and we haven't already given them? Especially given many of our missiles are intended to be air launched, so it would have to be something that could be integrated with the handful of F-16s Ukraine has. Prime suspect is this-
By 2023, Lockheed Martin could produce over 500 missiles total of JASSM and LRASM versions per year, with plans to increase production to 1,000 missiles annually
But the US may be reluctant to give those to Ukraine so Russia can develop countermeasures, which it could then share with China, DPRK, Iran etc. But Ukraine has just done this-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cwy9pkrpyjdo
Footage shot from the road shows a huge explosion at an arms depot near Tikhoretsk in Russia.
Which was a little strange because there was a lot of damage. Speculation is they managed to catch weapons being unloaded from rail cars, but ammunition dumps are supposed to be designed that if one bunker has a bad day, it doesn't set off the others. But it demonstrates that Ukraine already has long-range capability. But then Russia also has a lot of ammunition dumps, bridges, refineries and more.
And then there's escalation, or stuff like this-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y30244467o
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to present a "plan for victory" in the country's war with Russia to President Joe Biden during this week's visit to the US.
Which is a little odd given it gives the impression that the US is approving Ukraine's war plan, yet the US isn't a party to the conflict. Allegedly.
And in other news, Russia had a failed launch of its RS-28 Sarmat. Wonder why Russia is testing those now? Or, given Sarmats can already carry conventional hypersonic warheads like Avangard along with their RS-26 Rubezh shorter range (like 6,000km), Russia might use those to send a message to Ukraine that it's really time to get serious about negotiation. Plus some major pucker factor for NATO when those launches are detected.. Like where are they targetting, and what payload are they carrying? Maybe it's a Lockheed missile factory, or a Polish ammunition dump, or maybe Kiev's government buildings are about to have a very bad day. A 2 tonne Avangard coming in at Mach25+ carries a lot of kinetic energy, in addition to any warhead it might be carrying.
eel: What 'long range' missiles could we give Ukraine that they could actually use, and we haven't already given them?
cow: The west has developed many weapons and it has also given some of them to UKR. The reason UKR needs the ungiven weapons is the same reason the west developed and built stockpiles of those very weapons.
Options.
There are many other smaller arsenals near the border that could benefit UKR from being destroyed.
It also wouldnt hurt to send a few ATACMS to the KREMLIN in moscow just to show the RUssian people they are not the superior master race they think they are.
eel : And in other news, Russia had a failed launch of its RS-28 Sarmat. Wonder why Russia is testing those now?
cow: So fucking what.
Russia will never try and launch a hot one towards anyone because they know while they could maybe send a few to the west, they will receive 100x more back in return.
Russia also knows their systems are garbage, this is the 5th straight fail for Satan tests.
The worst thing the west can do is allow RUssia to blackmail them with exactly the actions you keep mentioning. Nobody wins if R wants to launch their missiles the will, no action short of a nuke strike from the west will change this. They need to be stopped blackmail never works. Secondly the west knows very well R missiles dont work, just like everything else in their military is a sad joke.
cow: The west has developed many weapons and it has also given some of them to UKR. The reason UKR needs the ungiven weapons is the same reason the west developed and built stockpiles of those very weapons.
Stop waffling and name the latest wunderwaffe that will somehow save Ukraine.
I mentioned JASSM and production capacity for a reason. When Russia decides to launch long range strikes on Ukraine, it often uses >100 missiles and drones. So for equivalence, that would give Ukraine maybe 5 mass strikes. Except Ukraine can't do those mass strikes because it's maybe got 5 F-16s left and AFAIK, those can only carry a single JASSM each. But Ukraine has already been launching >100 drone attacks into Russia, and some of those have got through Russia's air defences.
It also wouldnt hurt to send a few ATACMS to the KREMLIN in moscow just to show the RUssian people they are not the superior master race they think they are.
As opposed to the Banderites who think that true Ukrainians are the master race. Hence the de-Russification and general hatred of Slavs. Kinda how this conflict started. But ok, so ATACMS doesn't have the range. The Precision Strike Missile might but again, would we want to let Ukraine use those and let Russia develop counters? And sure, maybe Ukraine could attack the Kremlin. So far, Russia hasn't really tried for a decapitation strike, even though it's shown drone footage of Zelensky moving around Ukraine. At some point, Russia may tire of the WLBs antics and eliminate him, especially if Ukraine continues to escalate.
Russia will never try and launch a hot one towards anyone because they know while they could maybe send a few to the west, they will receive 100x more back in return.
Go read up on MAD. If Russia ever did launch, then it's pretty much game over and it doesn't really matter what the counterstrike might be. Using ICBMs as conventional missiles just makes life more interesting and risks accidents. Russia would hopefully notify NATO that Kiev is the target to avoid confusion though.
Russia also knows their systems are garbage, this is the 5th straight fail for Satan tests.
It's also had successes. How did out recent SLBM launches go btw?
Secondly the west knows very well R missiles dont work, just like everything else in their military is a sad joke.
And yet the 'jokers' are winning. One sad thing is the way this confict is pretty much mirroring another one lead by a bunch of genocidal nationalists, right down to the 'Steiner' moments, pointless offensives in Kursk (again) and praying for miraculous wunderwaffe to save the day. Or just blame the West if or when Ukraine finally recognises the reality on the ground.
Today the greatest savior of Putin is America, preventing UKR from using superior western weapons.
We can also see that Putin is buying time and hoping that if Trump wins support will be removed from UKR. Its the only chance he has, and he only has to wait 2 months for the elections and winter to start when the war will hibernate.
I never claimed there are or were wonder weapons, you are the extremist who takes every thing to the extreme. I never mentioned anything remote like the concept of a wonder weapon, i simply stated these superior western weapons would greatly help.
~
eel: And yet the 'jokers' are winning. One sad thing is the way this confict is pretty much mirroring another one lead by a bunch of genocidal nationalists, right down to the 'Steiner' moments, pointless offensives in Kursk (again) and praying for miraculous wunderwaffe to save the day. Or just blame the West if or when Ukraine finally recognises the reality on the ground.
cow: Russian hat again ?
Today the greatest savior of Putin is America, preventing UKR from using superior western weapons.
Hmm? I thought that was the WLB, who's in America at the moment doing that all-American thing signing artillery shells and intefering with elections. And as always, providing some great quotes-
"This would be an awful idea, if a person were actually going to carry it out, to make Ukraine shoulder the costs of stopping the war by giving up its territories," Zelensky said.
The West has been shouldering the costs of continuing the war, to the tune of over $200bn. The EU is trying to put together another $40bn to give to the most corrupt nation in Europe, and Boris the Clown wants a $500bn 'lend-lease' deal for Ukraine. I wonder how much Boris has personally donated to keep the confict he started going?
I never mentioned anything remote like the concept of a wonder weapon, i simply stated these superior western weapons would greatly help.
And again I'll ask.. Which weapons? I doubt you'll be able to answer given your mention of helium-3 rather than hydrogen-3, and tritium is one of those odd things that the US used to buy from Russia. Plus it's also one of those things that can't be produced by 'renewables'.
cow: Russian hat again ?
Again you confuse criticism of our blind support for Ukraine with support for Russia. But to borrow a phrase from Lavrov, reality must accept the reality on the ground. Which is Ukraine is losing territory at an accelerated pace since Ukraine's misadventure in Kursk. Russia has almost broken through the defence belt Ukraine spent 10 years building, and once it has, it remains to be seen whether it will stop at the territories it has claimed, or continue to capture more. Plus in a genius move, some of the newer defence fortifications have been built in the middle of open fields making it easier for Russia to defeat those.
You fail to see the savings for future years. Its like fighting a fire, yes it costs money to fight a fire, but it costs far more to ignore it.
I think it's you that fails to see the fire. So the sanctions our dear 'leaders' have imposed on us are currently costing billions, deindustrialising Germany etc etc. It has cost us $200bn or more so far in our proxy war with Russia and propping up the Kiev regime. If we continue as-is, Ukraine will shrink further and we'll be expected to pour even more into the money pit.
Ukraine has no realistic prospect of victory, and certainly not on their WLB's terms, ie restoration of Ukraine to 2014 borders, compensation, war crimes only for alleged Russian war crimes etc. There are indications the world is getting fed up with the Banderites and aren't listening to their demands any more. At which point, Ukraine's war is over, whether the Kiev regime likes that or not. Especially when it's also been attempting blackmail, like the threat of 40m refugees. Ukraine doesn't have 40m people any more, Poland has been strengthening it's borders against that kind of influx, and a good part of Ukraine might be happy under Russia. That is, after all why their civil war started.
Then we can maybe get back to trading, maybe share in some of the reconstruction projects, and start investigations into where the money poured into Ukraine has actually gone. But this fire is costing an awful lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, and most importantly, is costing an awful lot of Ukrainian lives, sacrificed to feed our 'leaders' egos.
eel: It has cost us $200bn or more so far in our proxy war with Russia and propping up the Kiev regime. If
cow: How much will it cost to increase military spending because Russia remains an active hot threat for another 50 years ?
How much did the cold war cost because the west didnt take out Stalin in 45 ?
This is backed up by Putin endorsing Trump as his preferred candidate because the Biden-Harris administration placed "so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia like no other president has ever introduced before".
Just a reminder than in 2019 Mexican artist Cosimo Cavallaro made a wall of cheese 1,000 feet long on the Mexican-US border, in order to Make America Grate Again. It's not relevant to this article but reading this article made me sad and I like to be reminded that some people really put the effort into puns.
"I can never forget that one of the most gifted, best educated nations in the world, of its own free will, surrendered its fate into the hands of a maniac."
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life."
"It is by its promise of a sense of power that evil often attracts the weak."
"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."
"Rudeness luxuriates in the absence of self-respect."
"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. "
"It has often been said that power corrupts. But it is perhaps equally important to realize that weakness, too, corrupts. Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many. Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion ARE THE FAULTS OF WEAKNESS. The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from their sense of inadequacy and impotence. We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression."
"It is by its promise of a sense of power that evil often attracts the weak."
"A multitude of words is probably the most formidable means of blurring and obscuring thought. There is no thought, however momentous, that cannot be expressed lucidly in 200 words."
"I CAN NEVER FORGET THAT ONE OF THE MOST GIFTED, BEST EDUCATED NATIONS IN THE WORLD, OF ITS OWN FREE WILL, SURRENDERED ITS FATE INTO THE HANDS OF A MANIAC."
---------------------------------------------------
"The only power a poet [philosopher] has is the ability to warn."--anon
"We had peace and stability around the world when Trump was last in power."
You're not very bright are you?
Can you please tell me in which year was there no war in the world?
Or do you just mean only ones reported on Fox news?
Were you asleep for all the violent and destructive riots pretty much non-stop from Trump winning until the end of 2020? What was the death toll from the summer of love again? I don't remember anyone being gunned down as they drove past on Jan 6th 2021 but that certainly happened in the Seattle CHAZ.
Well, except for the places where there were wars, obviously.
Like the gang war in Haiti that started under Trump's administration, and has now resulted in more than half a million Haitians fleeing to the US. Great work there.
The issues in Haiti long pre-date Trump but one of the most notable post French messing everything up periods is when Big Billy Clinton got involved. In 1994 the US effectively annexed Haiti in the name of democracy and in 1995 they forced the government to drop all import tariffs on rice, effectively destroying the local production. Further influence from a Clinton came in 2010 by Killary when an attempt was made to industrialise Haiti by building factories to produce clothing for the US at very low cost, basically turning the locals into slaves.
During Obama's 8 year span, the US military dropped just over 92000 bombs, an average of 11500 per year. In 4 years of Trump rule, the US dropped almost 75000, an average of about 18750 per year.
But please, remind us about how "Trump = peace"?
"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."
Does this apply to all the abuse and ad-hom attacks from the lefties on El Reg forums?
"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. "
Works both ways, the political establishment is utterly terrified of Trump as they have a cushy thing going lining their own pockets while they convince the plebs that only they can solve the very same problems they created.
"Hatred, malice, rudeness, intolerance, and suspicion ARE THE FAULTS OF WEAKNESS"
All traits of the political left. Now we wait for the replies proving my point :)
January 6th, 2021 has entered the chat> "LOL wut?"
Not to mention every MAGAt having documented and recorded evidence of their own racism, genocide, misogyny, and outright Nazi support.
The left you say? /s
But don't let the facts get in your way.
Trump *is* the establishment, as much as anyone is. He's a hereditary billionaire landowner, whose only use for the poor is to clean his golf cart. Last time he was in power, he lined his own pockets like no president since Harding, while creating problems that everyone else is still trying to clean up.
"Last time he was in power, he lined his own pockets like no president since Harding"
Citation needed, not just 'muh feels'.
"while creating problems that everyone else is still trying to clean up"
Whereas Biden has left us with WW3.
He's not a billionaire, he's just a con man.
If he were a billionaire he'd have no need for the new crypto currency scam his familly are promoting or all the NFTs he's released over the last few years, not to mention the simple "send me money or the boogeyman will rape your children" scam he's been running since he was last in office.
> And once again for the un-educated, the Nazi's were socialists, sigh
Indeed, the uneducated do often point out that Nazis had 'socialists' right there in the name as if that identifies their position on the modern US political spectrum.
The Nazis were ultra-nationalist social conservatives who expounded an ethnically-grounded anti-egalitarianism. Hitler himself said:
> What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.
i.e. Nazi use of the word 'socialism' is disjoint from the modern use — it implies nothing whatsoever about classic socialist concerns such as who owns the means of production and with whom wealth should be vested.
And, for fairness, because it's a politics thread: yes, endless policy differences between Nazis and the set of propositions that is currently 'the right' can also be found.
You and I both know that if this were a right wing forum and a "lefty" complained about the level of abuse, he would be laughed out of the place and even if he weren't, the abuse would only intensify.
People only merit as much tolerance as they give themselves. If you're not tolerated by the tolerant, it is because you are not tolerant. Think on that.
And do you know what "tolerance" actually means : it's accepting something that is essentially un-nice, but not accepting it would be even worse. Se we tolerate that unpleasant something ... until it reaches the level of tolerance beyond which we don't tolerate it anymore.
But the interesting bit is the "unpleasant" part : why do people who chant tolerance not rather seek to be "pleasant" and thus being actively desired, and not passively tolerated ? What is so nice about being grudgingly tolerated, instead of being happily desired ?
TBF to Russia it went absolute monarchy --> civil war --> communist dictatorship
AFAIK the country has never had a working democracy and when they were run by a psychopath he died off rather than anyone showing the balls necessary to depose him.
There are brave men and women in Russia but it's going to take massive effort for them to a) Depose dobbie b)avoid getting lumbered with another crooked dictator.
This best educated bit. From what I read from the outside education in the US seems to be bi-modal. On the one hand world-class universities and, presumably, the schools needed to feed them. On the other schools teaching creationism. So what is the mean* level of education? I get the impression that the US is two countries and one of them looks very like a failed state.
* Insofar as that applies to a bi-modal distribution.
Education isn't coordinated on the national level in the same way as it is in the UK; see e.g. the differences between the Common Core and the National Curriculum — the former is opt-in and is inherently limited in scope being primarily only about English and mathematics, whereas the latter is both comprehensive and, as the name says, fully national. That inevitably creates quite a spread.
The much-higher cost of university-level education also tends to close that door to a higher proportion of people; for universities run directly by states in 2024 the average cost of tuition per year for students from that state was $8,914 and out-of-state students was $19,081. The average annual tuition cost for private universities (i.e. most of them, and a majority of the really-good ones) was $27,665.
So, ummm, it's difficult to answer confidently on a mean. The standard deviation is off the charts, though.
Trump in office means WW3 is much less likely which, in my book, is a good thing.
The Democrats need to wake up to the reality of the situation before it's too late. We are in a multipolar world now. China and the rest of the BRICS have Russia's back, since they know if Russia should fall they could be next. Gone are the days when the US was powerful enough to take on the rest of the world combined. The global south will no longer be coerced and bullied into submission.
You're basically channeling Chamberlain and his appeasement strategy with Hitler. Didn't he look foolish when Hitler kept going. Anyone who thinks Putin would stop at Ukraine is a complete fucking moron. He's openly said he wants back Russia's empire days, which encompassed a lot more than Ukraine's land.
You're basically channeling Chamberlain and his appeasement strategy with Hitler. Didn't he look foolish when Hitler kept going. Anyone who thinks Putin would stop at Ukraine is a complete fucking moron. He's openly said he wants back Russia's empire days, which encompassed a lot more than Ukraine's land.
No evidence of that whatsoever. Besides, your analogy fails since there was no NATO and no nuclear deterrent in 1939. Not stopping in Ukraine means triggering Article 5. Putin may be many things, but he's clearly not stupid.
It's as Obama said in 2016. Ukraine is a core Russian interest in a way that it is not for the United States. As such the Russians will always maintain escalatory dominance.
It's long past time to put a stop to the failed CIA project in Ukraine and a peace settlement should be negotiated immediately.
Nonsense
What you fail to appreciate in the super -power game, appearance or show is everything. China for example wants everyone to worry about them, because as has been proven lately by Russia, Russian equipment is garbage, and China has a lot of Russian equipment and just like R is full of corruption and fake claims about capabilities and technology.
On the other hand, America is also caution becaus eit doesnt want to show how good or poor its own equipment is. We have seen for example American and British and German tanks are garbage in Ukraine, because they are too heavy and cant travel in the mud. War is a scarey place, because it shows the real performance very quickly. I think its fair to say the age of the tank is over, there are far more cost effective and powerful combat weapons, the investments of tanks by all forces are shown today to be very very much overvalued.
The tank has long-since been an obsolete form of warfare. If your opponent has access to ATGMs or (at the very least) shaped-charge type equipment in adequate numbers then it's largely ineffective as anything other than being just-another artillery piece.
There is a reason the tanks were being wound down in the British Army even during the cold war. Expansion of the Army Air Corps, using Lynx and
Apache helicopters for the serious anti-vehicle work was given the highest priorities for damn good reasons. The artillery arm and RAF had extensive inventories of cluster munitions that were good at anti-vehicle work. The moves to ban such equipment in the late 1990s meant we developed the Brimstone instead. Effectively, a multi-launch variant of the hellfire to allow a jet to attack multiple vehicles in an armoured column in one pass, a capability that was lost when the BL755 was banned.
The US army has spent 30+ years building LAV concepts for good reasons, and while the Abrams has soldiered on, it is similarly obsolete in the face of the right kind of explosives. Recon drones carrying hellfires exist for very, very good reasons.
Modern warfare between more-or-less technologically comparable foes is proving to be not so far removed from 1914-1918; that is to say, economics is king.
Tanks are still a useful battlefield component, but only when used correctly as part of combined arms operations - they work well against emplaced infantry and light armoured vehicles but they need support from infantry themselves, alongside suitable air support and engineers/sappers to deal with any minefields.
Ukraine unfortunately lacks some of these components - notably air support (both jet and helicopter providing counter-armour support) and probably sufficient numbers of engineers/sappers to support their forward movement.
Actually, the UK was working on Brimstone prior to the ban - it was realised that making a single low level pass over a Soviet armoured column to deploy BL755, even at the silly-low altitudes the RAF planned to fly the missions, was near suicidal, and that a weapon system that could do the same job from some kilometers distant was much better.
I have seen the suggestion that the reason why the UK was happy to sign up to the cluster munition ban was because the RAF's attitude (as opposed to altitude) was that they already intended to phase out cluster munitions, so the ban was (for the RAF) of no actual consequence.
I only gave the tank as one example of western equipment that is useless. There are many other types of equipment which are also dated, and naturally the west doesnt want them to be shown to be history.
I think we are seeing the same with the T14 R tank. I think its obvious to say that its a complete piece of junk and thats why it has never been in battle.
Well R tanks because they have far too much missing armour are of course much lighter, and can move, but they also are useles because they haveno armour.
Either way tanks just cant win in Eastern Europe, they are basically pointless, and there are much better options.
We have seen for example American and British and German tanks are garbage in Ukraine, because they are too heavy and cant travel in the mud.
The modern Main Battle Tank was designed by Britain with the Centurion tank at the close of WW2. It combined a gun powerful enough to destroy basically anything it faced with armour on the front of the tank thick enough to laugh at the premier threat of the day, the 88mm gun. Armour at the sides, top and rear were minimal, with the expectation that the front (and thus the heaviest armour) would be facing the enemy.
Everything since that has copied the basic design.
The problem with the current war is that remote control aircraft with even a light RPG strapped to the front is capable of killing a MBT if it hits it in various locations.
Therefore you can no longer expect to only armour one part of the vehicle and get away with it; future tanks will need to have heavy armour on all aspects. What you'll find is that tanks have underperformed due to the drone issue, so everyone will be going in for heavy IFV's with a heavy auto cannon and missiles to take on tanks. This will last until the next war when anti tank rockets get countered and tank guns blow expensive IFV's away cheaply.
Peter: The problem with the current war is that remote control aircraft with even a light RPG strapped to the front is capable of killing a MBT if it hits it in various locations.
cow:Problem ?
War isnt about playing by rules that are convenient...
Im simply pointing out the era of tanks has passed, there are new weapons.
"No evidence of that whatsoever".
Apart from Putin's stated goals of recreating the Soviet Union / Tsarist Russia. This he documents in his own book, remarkably similar in tone and ambition to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Plus his speeches on exactly the same subject, where he claims Russia doesn't need "borders" but world domination. Then there's the state media with its collection of propagandists calling for Russian control of Eastern Europe.
Disagree, the French army utterly dwarfed that of Germany in 1938/39. Better equipped too, both quality of tanks and artillery numbers.
The leadership, however, was thoroughly incompetent and had learned completely the wrong lessons from 1914-18. Rather than uselessly sitzkrieging in the Maginot line; an offensive in 1938 to seize German industry could have probably ended the Nazis well before 1941.
The German army of 1939 that rolled into Poland used vast numbers of pilfered Czech tanks for a reason - they didn't have enough of their own.
Both Britain and France were democracies.
To go to war, their respective leaders had to carry with them the countries' Parliaments, news media and general population.
In the case of both countries, all three of those groups were markedly against war at the time of Munich.
Chamberlain's 'bit of paper' was important because it was the signed promise from Herr Hitler that he had no more territorial demands beyond the Sudetenland. When the Germans then annexed all of Czechoslovakia, it convinced enough of those three groups that Hitler could not be trusted, and would need to be opposed by force. That then empowered the British and French Government to make the promise of protection to Poland/make the promise of war against Germany.
It's arguable that if Chamberlain had made it clear that Britain wouldn't stand by, Hitler might have backed off. Realistically, though, I don't think Hitler would have backed off and buying time so Britain was more ready to fight when the inevitable came was the right choice. Unfortunately, the coin Chamberlain had to spend to buy that time was human lives in other countries. I don't think there was any way he came out of it looking good.
Dictators are in the main bullies, and bullies do back off if you can stand up to them because like all bullies they're dependent on showing strength to the weak. That's why I said it was arguable that Hitler would back off.
On the other hand, Hitler was more than just a bully. He was a frothing psychotic with an absolute conviction that everyone else was weaker. That's why I don't support the argument that he would have backed off in the face of strength - however strong Britain appeared, he would still believe that Germany was stronger.
the same question, was buying time, but did we? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way (no he didn't, etc.), but is it noticeable that, for example, that extra time between September 1939 and - what - the battle of Britain? - bought us time to be more 'ready to fight'? Arguably, without declaring war on Germany, the UK would have bought more time with Germany - potentially - putting off the preparations for the invasion by a couple of years, why they would have got stuck in the Soviet Union anyway (just one potential development, not necessarily the most likely one).
Correct.
Anyone wondering what dobbie would do next can just look at a map of the USSR around 1989.
That's what he wants back.
All of it.
The fact that they were sovereign nations before Stalin invaded them (and some are part of NATO) means literally nothing to him.
well, but really Putin ONLY wants the Old Empire, minor territorial concessions like Ukraine and the Baltics, and the Caucaus (never mind those pseudo-states in place). Well, I mean, it would be NICE to have The New Russian Empire set the border along the Vistula river or perhaps push a bit further about the future Scholzes, but you can't have it all in one go, it takes time.
The man does believe in his vision though. Fortunately, not much time left to live, and all this might collapse pretty fast when his sucessors squabble for the scraps.
Keep drinking the koolaid pal.
He's there for the oil. Estimated reserves off the coast of Crimea are greater than Saudi Arabia. Under international law, he who owns Crimea, owns the off shore oil.
It'd be really nice if he had direct terra firma access to Crimea.
And of course, stop Ukraine tanking the Russian economy, by selling gas, and oil cheaper to the EU than Russia can/wants to.
The invasion of UKR is not about oil.
Dictators are always worried about being invaded or someone trying to kill them. THis has always been true.
Russia always feels nervous because of their history of being total arseholes which is why most of Central/Eastern EU hates them and rightly so, together with their land having no geographical boundaries that would stop other forces. Its all flat from Germany to Mongolia, tahts why everyone from Napoleon, to Hitler to the Huns has just walked right in. Putin wants to restore the boundaries of the Soviet bloc when their borders were mountains and far shorter.
He played a big bluff and lost, he guessed wrongy that UKR would just fold in 3 days and not even try and fight back like they sort of did about CRIMEA about 10 years ago.
The real q is how long has the west known how completely crap USSR/R equipment has been, and how much do they really know about the nuclear capabilities of Russian rockets. YOu dont just hit a button and they launch, they require very careful care and resupplies. My bet is most a large majority of their systems simply dont work because for starters ICBM and rocket fuels are toxic and corrosive, so there goes a lot of rockets. The same is also true of the systems to make those nukes work. THey dont just sit there for years, cars which are far simpler cant sit in a yard for 10 years and just restart, let alone something as complex as a nuclear warhead.
My bet is most a large majority of their systems simply dont work because for starters ICBM and rocket fuels are toxic and corrosive, so there goes a lot of rockets.
That's a very big bet you're making with other cities lives. Especially when Russian missiles like RS-24 Yars and Topol have a 10,000km+ range and are solid fuelled. And the launch vehicles are mobile. Then there are the liquid fuelled missiles like the RS-28 Sarmat with 35,000km range and city-killing payloads. Oh, and Russia's submarine and ship launched missiles.
So is this really something you want to risk for the sake of a 2-bit comedians ego?
No.
Dobbie's war with Ukraine has given the West quite a good insight into the state of the Russian armies preparedness.
It's a paper bear.
BTW solids require less maintenance but have substantially poorer performance than liquids. They can also slump if left unattended for too long.
Keep in mind Russia is buying ballistic missiles (with 120Km) from Iran.
That's not exactly a vote of confidence in their local mfg or support capability.
Dobbie's war with Ukraine has given the West quite a good insight into the state of the Russian armies preparedness.It's a paper bear.
It's also an exercise in cognitive dissonance. Milley said Russia would take Kiev in only 3 days. 2yrs later, Russia is still grinding away. Russia is a paper bear, the third worst army in Ukraine, incompetent, useless, sacrificing thousands of soldiers a day in meatwave attacks etc.
But then if Russia is so weak, why are our 'leaders' telling us that if we (I mean Ukraine) don't defeat Russia now, they'll be in Paris by Xmas.
BTW solids require less maintenance but have substantially poorer performance than liquids. They can also slump if left unattended for too long.
I'm pretty sure Russia is aware of this, and based on test launches they're good enough for government work.
Keep in mind Russia is buying ballistic missiles (with 120Km) from Iran.That's not exactly a vote of confidence in their local mfg or support capability.
Yep. And-
The first stage of the Atlas III discontinued the use of three engines and 1.5 staging in favor of a single Russian-built Energomash RD-180 engine, while retaining the stage's balloon tank construction.
Which became a.. bit of a problem when the US started sanctioning Russia and didn't have a domestic equivalent of the RD-180. Or relying on Russian Soyuz rockets to launch astronauts to the ISS. Now it has Dragons and errm.. Boing's Starliner, and at some point Blue Origin might get their Vulcan certified. Meanwhile, Russia continues to build rockets and missiles.
As for Iran, they've been sanctioned for decades yet have also been developing their own rockets and missiles because the US and Israel have been sabre rattling for decades and seem determined to provoke a war with Iran. This obviously makes sense because the West has been struggling to match production of artillery and missiles to feed the proxy war in Ukraine. If Russia can buy missiles, artillery and artillery ammunition from Iran, or DPRK, why wouldn't it? Russia is, after all competing with the might of the entire NATO arms industry, along with non-NATO countries, like having to buy 155mm shells from India to give to Ukraine.
And NATO still can't keep up.
Which leads to bizarre ideas like building weapons manufacturing facilities in Ukraine. While there is an ongoing conflict. And Russia has already demonstrated an ability to hit buildings anywhere in Ukraine. Our 'leaders' are smart, and being mostly PPE and arts grads, haven't heard the old joke that mechanical engineers build weapon systems, civil engineers build targets.
On which point, the sanctions have also had the effect of encouraging closer relations between Russia, Iran, DPRK including technology transfers. They get to build improved rockets, missiles etc, Russia gets an expanded supply base. Not exactly a great situation for global peace and stability, but an entirely predictable outcome.
eel: That's a very big bet you're making with other cities lives. Especially when Russian missiles like RS-24 Yars and Topol have a 10,000km+ range and are solid fuelled.
cow:
The last 5 Satan missiles with their 18000 range have all failed, with the best flight recording under 40km.
If theres one thing recent years have shown is how terrible Russians are for taking care of their military. We have all seen how their carrier required a tug to follow it because it was constantly breaking down. Thats just for starters.
eel: and are solid fuelled.
cow: Solid fuels are very very toxic and corrossive and damaging. I think its fair to say Russians have probably let these same fuelds rot and destroy most of their missile motors. THe last launch at Pletovsk (sp( has shown yet again this very simple fact to be true.
Nukes also require helium 3 which has a half life of 12ish years, and requires constant replacement. Whats the best those magnificent Russians have not done this so basically their nuke warheads are also probably dead.
A lot of care is necessary and required to keep missiles in good health, if theres one thing recent hyears have taught us, Russias are not careful at all, they are just too stupid to be careful.
Indeed.
Some before-and-after shots Here
However those warheads don't use He3, they use Tritium (H3) that decays into He3. He3 is stable, Tritium is the one with the (roughly) 12 year half life.
The question is does Russia still have a supply chain to refurb their H warheads with fresh fuel (LiT IIRC)?
Dobie talks big, (like a guy with a Napoleon* complex?) but IRL the West has a pretty good idea of what the Russian military can (and cannot) deliver.
* And we know what happened to Napoleon in Russia.
US can't dissolve NATO, but Trump can withdraw the US membership, as he threatened to do before (if I remember correctly). He mumbled something about preferred bilateral defence agreements with 'some' US partners. Ironically (?) there's been a large wave of such bilateral agreements signed between various European countries, I wonder if this is a conscious (or not) effort to counter such a, potential, for now, US withdrawal from NATO.
p.s. the US really is the main 'contributor' in NATO, both in financing, logistics, and obviously, the military, something like 70%. That said, a large chunk of their expenditure is unrelated to NATO 'legal' obligations (pact-related), obviously they have their Pacific 'commitements' and the rest of the world.
China doesn't have Russia's back, China will trade with Russia as long as it's profitable for them, which right now it is due to the low prices Russia is selling their gases and oils at.
China is also getting increasingly annoyed with Putin asking them for more and more resources/weapons components and trying to ship North Korean ammunition through China to Russia. Note how China has never directly supplied Russia with ammunition of their own during this war, only components & movement of NK ammunition over their land.
China has also reined in Putin's rhetoric around nuclear war, because China knows that a nuclear detonation (even a tactical one) would get NATO heavily involved directly with Russia, and would damage trading relationships between China and the west due to China not supporting the west against Russia. It would also damage their chances of ever taking Taiwan too.
TL;DR: China sees Russia as an annoying resource provider who currently is worth keeping around.
The chinese hate the Russians. They really really want their northern lands which they lost in the unequal treaties over a 100 years ago to the RUssian Czar.
One day the chinese will take those lands probably by flooding the land with chinese migrants, because China is just as corrupt but very patient - they know their limits and they also know their corruption makes them a paper tiger.
"So are the Russian trolls here paid or useful idiots?"
Both ... the paid flush out the 'useful idiots' !!!
None of them are able to write anything useful as 'all things Trump' exist in a fact free zone, which means you just make something up !!!
[Sounds familiar !!!??? ... just like Trump does himself !!!]
:)
It's clear that some people are able to run for President and win votes from those who don't even have a credible opinion about what time it is.
If someone wants to run for President, they should first have to be vetted and approved by a safety council. If someone wants to vote, they should have to take a test that measures reading/reasoning skills, emotional intelligence, cultural awareness and basic empathy.
@anonymous boring coward
"But multiple felony convictions should certainly disqualify anyone from running for president."
There is a problem with that too. For example a desperate lawfare effort to try and disqualify your political opponent. Remember they attempted to impeach Trump twice to try and disqualify him from running after the state assault against Trump failed to stop him winning the presidency.
Also what happens when a president is too mentally incapacitated to be prosecuted yet Biden intended to run again until he was pushed out. Notice he was only pushed out once the lies stopped working about his ability. Apparently that isnt enough to disqualify someone from being president or running for the presidency!
What the US really needs is a general overhaul of the constitution to bring it kicking and screaming into the century of the fruitbat 21st century - remove a load of ambiguities, clarify rights of the modern age, add in bits about digital and online and alter rights reserved to the federal government etc etc.
But no one will ever do it because there's no way of getting a 2/3rds majority on anything out of Congress Assembled, not even on a resolution to declare that water is wet.
@John Smith 19
"IIRC None of the other 45 Presidents had convictions before they took office in the last 250years."
And when did Trump get these 'convictions'? When there was a massive lawfare effort against him to try and discredit him from the presidency. A lot of such efforts crashed and burned once the supreme court explained the way the presidency and executive works to the dems. Note that the amusing 'felonies' probably wont stand to any reasonable appeal due to serious problems with the lawfare effort.
Disqualifying Trump because the state has again been abused against him is what we typically accuse dictatorships of doing.
Note that the supreme court struck down Bidens debt relief to which Biden then proceeded to do it again anyway. Biden took classified documents and actually didnt have the authority to do so legally, yet wont be prosecuted due to his mental state.
Yet the dems were going to let him stand.
"And when did Trump get these 'convictions'?"
"When there was a massive lawfare effort"
Just because someone keeps repeating a word or phrase, it doesn't make it real. That's just kookie magical thinking.
@AC
"Here you go."
That is the proof of being 'convicted' when he was running for president again and part of the lawfare effort.
"Just because someone keeps repeating a word or phrase, it doesn't make it real. That's just kookie magical thinking."
Well noticed. And trying to ignore the lawfare effort is also kookie magical thinking because it was so damn public. Almost as stupid as trying to claim the security services didnt bias against Trump in 2016, the Steele dossier has been exposed.
@AC
"You are the one putting the word convicted in quotes."
You need to read the message thread to get the context. That is why your reply didnt make sense, you are not responding to my comment.
"And trying to create a narrative that Donald Trump Jnr. is somehow not a convicted felon."
Is he? When did Donald Trump Jnr get convicted and what for?
What I factually pointed out was the lawfare effort and abuse of the law to get any guilty verdict against Donald Trump which is unlikely to survive an appeal due to the abuse of the law. After a lawfare effort of attrition this is the best they managed to get.
The claim that Donald Trump is a victim of "lawfare" is not a matter of fact and is not something that can be objectively proven or disproven; it is a political and rhetorical argument.
Legally, Trump faces multiple indictments and investigations related to a variety of criminal and civil matters. These cases are being pursued under established laws, and the charges have been brought by prosecutors who, in legal terms, are required to meet standards of evidence and procedure to move forward.
From a purely legal perspective, courts will focus on whether the charges are supported by evidence and whether the legal process is being followed correctly. So far, courts have allowed these cases to proceed, which suggests that, legally speaking, the claims have enough merit to be heard.
And he's already been proved a criminal in some of these cases.
The claim that Donald Trump is a victim of "lawfare" is not a matter of fact and is not something that can be objectively proven or disproven; it is a political and rhetorical argument.
Sure it can. Simplest way is to point that a lot of the lawfare against Trump is getting tossed out, and the rest the Democrats might lose on appeals. Like in NY. How many other prosecutions have their been in NYC based on the same charges? Or will NYC start going after other property developers who've secured loans on properties with a higher valuation than the official tax assessment?
@AC
Assuming you are the same AC
"The claim that Donald Trump is a victim of "lawfare" is not a matter of fact and is not something that can be objectively proven or disproven;"
I took your comment to mean you didnt think lawfare was real, glad I misunderstood you. However here is the definition-
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lawfare
Considering the definition we can be certain Trump is a victim of lawfare due to the war of attrition and abuse of law used against him.
"Legally, Trump faces multiple indictments and investigations related to a variety of criminal and civil matters"
Proof of the lawfare being the excessive number and abuses of law to bring them about.
"These cases are being pursued under established laws"
Except not really. The property case in NY was a judge vs Trumps, the banks, experts, etc. It used a law to protect the client (Trump) from the banks and yet misapplied to put the state against everyone. The judge then picked an outrageous figure to 'fine' Trump which he then reduced (likely because it was so blatantly never going to withstand appeal).
Next we have the misdemeanors prosecuted after the statute of limitations which could only be done if they were related to a crime. As far as I am aware they still havnt defined what crime they are claiming this is relation to. Such misdemeanors were not pursued originally (even by Bragg himself who looked into them) because there was nothing to prosecute.
"And he's already been proved a criminal in some of these cases."
Still waiting for one. A lot of the cases have fallen apart due to their abuse of law already.
Not forgetting that the property case and the E Jean Carol case were both civil cases and not criminal cases. These have far lower standard of evidence. When you have the bank that Trump supposedly wronged saying 'yeah, it was all good, we'd work with him again' you know something is very wrong.
Top tip. Where the FOCF or his MAGA minions are concerned accusation is always confession
And more projection. AFAIK the only people Trump is taking legal action against are some journalists for calling him a conviced felon and rapist, neither of which are of course true.
It's also like the TDS sufferers thinking Trump his somehow the greatest threat to Democratcy, the reincarnation of Hitler and someone should put a bullseye on him. But these were the same TDS sufferers who only a few weeks ago were telling us that Biden was as sharp as a tack, had been doing amazing things for the US and he'd have four more years! Pause. So then-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary
In 2016, following a push by independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran as a Democrat, the party voted in favor of superdelegate reform, such that in future presidential elections most superdelegates will be bound to their state primary results.
Ah, Bernie. Upset the Blessed Hilary so much she bought the party. I think that was also the election cycle where WBM got knocked out in the first round. Or was that 2020? But some Democrats got to vote for Biden in their state primaries, because Biden was the only candidate strong and sharp enough to defeat Trump. Except the DNC changed their mind, Biden was suddenly deemed unfit for office and put on gardening leave.
And after the DNC's somewhat nicer version of Operation Hummingbird, there was a new Presidential candidate. Even though ordinary Democrats didn't get the chance to vote for (or against) her. And the Democrats didn't exactly explain why Biden was no longer fit & proper to run for a second term. I am rather hoping that Biden will (ghost)write a book explaining how he was so unceromoniously kicked to the curb. Especially if that's published before the election.
But that's Democratcy for you.
About 2 years later than he should have gotten them.
Top tip.
Honest people seek a quick trial because they know a)A trial clears as well as convicts b) They are innocent
Guilty people seek to avoid a trial as long as possible. Because they know they are as guilty as charged, whatever lies come out their mouths.
What was the FOCF's behaviour?
And remember in NYC it take a unanimous verdict to get a felony conviction.
Even the guy who got his news only from Fox News and Twitter reckoned he was guilty as charged.
Now I don't want to put any words in your mouth but I'll guess your line will be "Well it's his right to use every legal route to save his worthless arse himself from prison.
Quite true.
And it's our right to view his behaviour as that of a cheap crook and wannabe gangster who should never be allowed near the White House ever again.
Honest people seek a quick trial because they know a)A trial clears as well as convicts b) They are innocentGuilty people seek to avoid a trial as long as possible. Because they know they are as guilty as charged, whatever lies come out their mouths.
What was the FOCF's behaviour?
Who is this 'FOCF'? Any relation to WBM (Willy Browns Matress)?
But a funny thing about trials in most civilised countries is the right to a fair trial, and the right to defend yourself, if you believe you are innocent. In the US, this is... different under the Democrats. So in NY, Trump has been found guilty of not accepting a Florida property tax assessor, and the NY judge decided Mar-a-Lago was only worth $18m, despite being a very large property sitting on a large plot of land and comparable sales show it is probably worth a whole lot more. So Trump said it was worth $300m, banks agreed to lend money, Trump paid that money back, banks made money. But the Democrats judge somehow decided that based on some consumer law, this was somehow fraudulent.
And then there was the unique legal interpetations that book keeping treatments of 'hush money' were somehow felonies, not misdemeanors. Raising them to felonies required concealing some underlying crime, which was never actually charged. The prosecution and judge alluded to that being 'election interference', which is a federal charge anyway.
And remember in NYC it take a unanimous verdict to get a felony conviction.
And remember that a criminal conviction requires 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The judge created a multiple choice set of instructions for the jury, but wouldn't let the jury have a copy of the instructions. The jury may have found Trump guilty of.. something, but as the criminal activity was never actually charged, that element of the show-trial might still be declared as a mistrial, and the jury verdict overturned.
But that's the most important part your TDS has blinded you to.. Trump hasn't actually been convicted. If you think he has, then I'm sure you can produce the judge's ruling and sentence. And then of course Trump has the right to appeal. But you are right about dragging cases out. The Democrats have done this to interfere with Trump's election campaign, because that's how US Democratcy works.
And it's also going to be one of those future popcorn moments. So if/when Trump wins, there can be an investigation into the Democrat's election interference attempts. Which seems quite fair, given that's kinda, sorta what NY has.. well, not actually charged with. Then prosecutions for that, along with violations of the US Hatch Act may follow and senior Democrats end up in jail. Remember what Darth Biden said? Nobody is above the law..
He may even have Trump on a video-tape..
..one which, now that we have AI video generation, is undergoing heavy inflation, since its deniability is becoming stronger every time a new and improved AI is trained.
Still, I would not mind it, if Putin releases those tapes, as long as I personally must not watch them. Poor Journalists would end up with PTSD.
@LogicGate
"He may even have Trump on a video-tape.."
Is this the discredited Steele Dossier nonsense? The one burned down after the 2016 election when it was found the state badly misbehaved pretending this rubbish had any credibility while privately acknowledging it was bull.
"Still, I would not mind it, if Putin releases those tapes, as long as I personally must not watch them"
Doesnt seem to stop you fantasizing about it. Hell you could go make a deep fake if thats what floats your boat but dreaming a lie is truth is just your fantasy.
This post has been deleted by its author
Certainly.
Fat Old Convicted Felon
Originally the Fat Old Crook, but hat tip to Jake for pointing out not just a crook, a convicted felon.
And when Schwarzenegger was asked about him he said "215lb, 315lb* maybe."
For comparison Chris Hemsworth in Thor is what a real 215lb, 6' 2" white man looks like
*Making him BMI 40+ if correct.
Remember that muscle is denser than fat. I'm a 6'2" 215lb man and I don't look like Chris Hemsworth. That said, I may have a muffin top these days but I don't look like Trump either. Arnie's probably bang on in his assessment that Trump weighs around 300lbs.
And thanks for the expansion.
Quite true.
When his arrest record came out with "Weight 215" on it, and various people posted shots of Muhamed Ali in his "Rumble in the Jungle" days (215lb, 6' 2") I looked to see if there were any shots of the FOCF around a swimming pool, given he's not cursed with false modesty (about anything).
Imagine my surprise that nothing showed up.
Here’s the problem. Those of us who think critically have known for years that the orange man is bad news. He’s a cheating, lying, racist grifter whose few successes have been based on luck and on scamming others. His only talent is a certain shiny TV charm, which is appealing to people with a room temperature (C, not K) IQ.
The risk is that he doesn’t win the popular vote (which seems increasingly likely at the moment) but that he gets handed the presidency by a corrupt electoral college system and a stuffed Supreme Court. The irony being, of course, all the snowflake whining from the MAGA movement that this is what will be perpetrated against them.
Whether we agree with them or not on policy, we have to hope that the Dems win in November AND are able to take the Presidency, House and Senate - because, right now, they really are the only party which is standing up for democracy.
That having been said, I truly hope that the Republican Party can sort itself out - a single party state, even one where the single party has the best interests of its people at heart, is not a healthy state of affairs. Further more, those parties need to be able to work together on bipartisan policies - rather than just stamping on each others toes.
@abc
a. All states under the Articles of Confederation, had an equal vote in Congress. Adding a House of Representatives apportioned according to population was a considerable change, allowing the more populous states representation nearer to their importance. (Sorry, Delaware.)
b. No state had to ratify the Constitution, and some took a while to do so.
But you could argue all day long, it's true.
And it is true that the ratio of population between the least populous state and most has increased since 1788.
Being old doesn't confer legitimacy upon it. In a truly democratic system the person with the most votes should be the winner - whether or not we agree with them. To be clear, the system adopted in the UK, FPTP, is not truly democratic either - and is open to all kinds of shenanigans and corruption. So, yes, I know what the word 'corrupt' means and if we agree with the dictionary definition of Democracy (i.e. that democracy is a system where the power is vested with the people) then the Electoral College is a corruption of the democratic system.
I'll leave the last word to the US Embassy (https://uk.usembassy.gov/the-electoral-college)
"The winner of the Electoral College vote is usually the candidate who has won the popular vote. However, it is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. There have been a total of five candidates who have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College, with the most recent cases occurring in the 2016 and 2000 elections. Two other presidents—Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888—became president without winning the popular vote. In the 1824 election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, Jackson won the popular vote but neither won a majority of Electoral College votes."
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority,
Where roughly 40-50 000 people decide (because of a system introduced to placate the slave owners in Southern states) choose the winner to run a country of about 330 million?
in the 21st century we can not just design alternate electoral systems we can simulate them before the rules are changed to ensure fairness for all sides.
Assuming of course all sides want a fairer system. The keenness with which the Republicans have been busily rigging the rules in places like Georgia suggests they do no.
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority,
Hmm.. Starmer and the votes that achieved his 'landslide'.. Labour's gone quite about reforming the UK system from first past the post to proportional representation since that set of results. Can't think why.
in the 21st century we can not just design alternate electoral systems we can simulate them before the rules are changed to ensure fairness for all sides.
But we can. In the UK, we now need photo ID to show some semblence of right to vote. In the US, any suggestion of requiring voter ID gets shouted down by the Democrats as somehow being 'racists'. Because presumably the Demcrats think minorities are incapable of getting an ID showing their citizens might actually be entitled to vote. Because nobody in the US ever needs an official ID to do anything. Then again, in places like Springfield, Haitans are being handed out driving licences even faster than Tampon Timmy is handing out tampons to school boys..
Something that should be scrapped in the UK as well.
IIRC the Heritage Foundation (Y'know, the people behind Project 2025) found IIRC over 20 years about 1,465 across the entire US over (IIRC) 20 years.
That's roughly 5 presidential elections of what 150 million possible voters each? 1465/750 000 000 is 0.00019533%
The UK is similarly low.
Voter ID is right-wing BS designed to disenfranchise poorer voters.
Voter ID is right-wing BS designed to disenfranchise poorer voters.
Uhuh. Would that be because 'poorer voters' don't have driving licences, benefits cards, all those things you need to do pretty much anything in the US? Or would a fairly fundamental aspect of democracy being that only the people who are entitled to vote can actually vote..
Funnily enough the Democrats tried much the same tricks when they tried to stop black people having the right to vote..
it's designed to stop the young from voting.
they deliberately for no reason made ID that young people would have not count.
but weirdly they allowed the same type of ID that old people use valid.
SO fuck off with that right wing bollocks
To ensure "equal representation" to Southern states which didn't have the high level of eligible voters as the Northern states.
IE White men.
Incidently the American Civil War started due to the unwillingness of the Southern states willingness to accept the results of the 1860 Presidential election of Abraham Lincoln.
This should have gone down the shi**er of history when the South lost but has kept on like a weed.
The argument that is that without it large states have a disproportionate advantage over "small" states (in population, not area) could be be addressed explicitly in other ways. The claim that it somehow stops "ineligible" candidates (who won the Popular vote, as the FOCF has never done) from getting in has been shown as total BS.
There are 2 ways to fix it. a)Get a 2/3's majority in both Houses and 3/4 of all States. IOW a win at both Rep/Sen and Govenor levels b) The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which is a state-by-state agreement to have state EC votes agree with the national popular vote.
Option b can currently deliver 212 of the 270 needed to deliver an outright win. But they are getting there.
For those curious how the system got this fu**ed up is explained Here
the fact that a huge majority of seemingly intelligent people in the Republican Party have chosen to side with Trump, despite seeing this man is not fit to run an empire, shows to me they are there for themselves, not for their country. Which kind of confirms the urban myth (or prior art?) that all politicians are corrupt and are in there only for themselves.
Your final line is the absolute rock bottom of the political issues across the entirety of the modern "Democratic" world at the moment.
The one total sin created by the combination of a global internet, the death of print news, and "FREE" social media is the absolutism that exists on both sides of any political argument. Advertising drives revenue, clickbait drives views, views generate advertising, so, make the headline reactive, people will click, and have the article push ONE VIEW only -- generate controversy, more clicks! MOoooooooooar AD revenue!!!!
As for Vlad liking the Donnie, basically, Vlad is a dictator, and Donnie has made it clear he wants to be King Of America, with clearly dictatorial approach, and dictators share a common interest, and common goals, so makes for easy friendships. And neither of them have many real friends any more.
Has he? When?
Are you a moron? Or are you just pretending? I don't know if you are. Hence the question mark.
which didnt happen.
Not through lack of trying, right? Jan 6th: Donnie whipping up his mob to go stop the peaceful transition of power after Donnie lost an election.
Why do you have such poor inferencing skills?
"I want to be a dictator on day one."
No dictator has ever relinquished power after one day without either the use of considerable force or their death.
There is no evidence the FOCF has any level of self control necessary to behave in such a manner.
The combination together describes someone who a)Wants absolute power b)will retain it as long as possible.
So either your yet another delusional cultist, a paid troll or somewhere on the autistic spectrum.
Care to comment Mr (or Ms) Eel?
Because right now I'm looking at you the way the VP looked at the FOCF when he started saying "They're eating the dogs"
@John Smith 19
"Why do you have such poor inferencing skills?"
Do I? 3 days ago Alistair posted something which to my knowledge is discredited. It has taken 3 days and an AC troll before you post something up to try and support the claim, and what you posted is the discredited line.
"I want to be a dictator on day one."
Can you now post what was actually said? Not some tiny snippet intentionally framed as if he said something else but can you please post what he actually said. This is as discredited as the stupid 'bloodbath' lie. You claim my inference skills are poor yet you seem to be inferring from radically incorrect data.
"No dictator has ever relinquished power after one day without either the use of considerable force or their death."
Awesome so we have a testable hypothesis. Trump was president. The left then claimed he would be a dictator. Trump was not a dictator which made the left sad. Then covid hit and Trump was still not a dictator. But the left cried because they wanted Trump to be a dictator because they falsely believed it would save lives.
"There is no evidence the FOCF has any level of self control necessary to behave in such a manner."
Who is FOCF? And we have absolute proof, as I just delivered above. I infer your hypothesis is wrong.
"The combination together describes someone who a)Wants absolute power b)will retain it as long as possible."
Except again that is radically incorrect data as above. However I point out Trump has been selected by votes to represent the republicans. In the democratic party in 2016 Sanders had that support but Hillary was chosen. I am trying to remember who Biden had to contend with to be the presidential candidate. And who did Harris have to win democrat support from?
This is a rabbit hole question because we know Biden isnt running the country but there is a good question of how long has he not been running the country? His opponents have been pointing out Joes mental state since before the election, and after his debate performance his staff and everyone who deals with him also knew and were covering for him, so who has been running the country and for how long? If Harris wins the presidency will she be running the country or will it still be whoever else?
And even more importantly, why isnt Harris the president now? Biden has checked out. They all knew his mental state for however long. Harris has the duty to take over the presidency and didnt. Why?
"So either your yet another delusional cultist, a paid troll or somewhere on the autistic spectrum."
I will refrain from insults at this point because you are working off incorrect data for whatever reason. But I suspect this is why the coward and Alistair didnt try to justify the comment, because its debunked.
4 years of Trump being frustrated and raging at the US constitution, laws and check & balances.
The "man" who would be king/emperor and espouses/covets the power dictators and even verbalises such desires, in public, and you missed this?! Wake up, MAGAjunkie.
@AC
"4 years of Trump being frustrated and raging at the US constitution, laws and check & balances."
I guess you missed the dems seriously discussing court packing? Or Biden paying off student loans even though supreme court ruled against it. Instead of going through congress Biden decided to unilaterally bribe the votes and then do it again after the supreme court ruled it illegal.
Trump may have been frustrated and raging, but that would be checks and balances restricting him.
The really worrying thing is that MAGA morons seem to have no, or very little, ability to do critical thinking.
No wonder they can be manipulated so easily.
Dictatorships will always have the edge in this kind of operation, as democracies can't do the same for a number of reasons.
We have down-voters here, probably operating from Russia. And we have a few useful idiots too, probably in USA.
I wonder if their videos are as good as the deep fake from Musk-
https://x.com/mrreaganusa/status/1816826660089733492
This does highlight a problem with Harris, she is very hard to parody. It is very difficult to make her look less genuine or more ridiculous. It is easy to understand why she is kept away from openly speaking to the media.
I love the Trump parodies that have been emanating from the Trump campaign lately. Today, for example, Trump's claim to Fox News about his recent debate failure:
> They didn’t correct her once and they corrected me, everything I said practically… and the audience went absolutely crazy.
I love that he parodied perception of him as an old, confused man who tends to lie by pretending — regardless of the reality — that he thinks there was an audience at that debate.
It's probably his best self-parody since:
> Think of it, magnets. Now all I know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that’s the end of the magnets.
Or:
> First they say, ‘Sir, how do you do it? How do you wake up in the morning and put on your pants?’ And I say, ‘Well, I don’t think about it too much.’ I don’t want to think about it because if I think about it too much maybe I won’t want to do it, but I love it because we’re going to do something for this country that’s never been done before.
@ThomH
"> They didn’t correct her once and they corrected me, everything I said practically… and the audience went absolutely crazy."
At first was the obvious bias being pointed out and that wasnt a shock. I was very amused at the fact checking the fact checking of ABC for spouting lies. Apparently it was so bad they did another interview with Harris but it went so bad as expected.
"I love that he parodied perception of him as an old, confused man who tends to lie by pretending — regardless of the reality — that he thinks there was an audience at that debate."
Looking at your quote (let me know if you quoted him wrong) but there was an audience (people watching the debate) and he didnt say the audience was there at the debate. And people have been complaining about the misbehaviour of the moderators, at best it made Harris look weak at worst it showed she is weak.
But you deflected well from Harris being very difficult to parody for her lack of positives.
It is fair to assume that US imperialism collides with the interests of the Russian state, that values territorial integrity and continuity of "Russian values", endorsed by its president Putin.
Intelligent people like to see their enemies weak and not strong, governmental policies have a significant influence on outcomes.
Maybe someone could explain the logic of president Putin supporting the re-election of president Trump.
Dems support green policies, that is currently destroying Western economies.
Dems support the war on conventional energy like oil and gas, creating tensions with oil producing nations, causing them to align more with Russia.
Dems support societal changes that are unacceptable for most of the worlds population, like drag queens and men posing as women in sports events.
Dems support uncontrolled immigration, to enlarge their future voter base, which is currently destroying the coherency of all societies in the West.
Dems support uncontrolled consumption of drugs in the USA, causing a death toll due to overdose exceeding the war casualties in Ukraine.
Dems support the industrial military complex, spending endless money on proxy wars and weapons instead on their own population.
It is not a surprise that president Putin officially made statements that he is supporting vice president Harris.
Splutter! Seriously? Are you taking the bloody piss?
Intelligent people like to see their enemies weak and not strong - Intelligent people know that the real art of the deal is for both parties to walk away from the negotiation feeling that they 'won' something. And that only by working together can human civilisation advance.
Dems support green policies, that is currently destroying Western economies - Intelligent people know that anthropogenic climate change is real and will foment war and destroy civilisations (not to mention entire ecosystems). Intelligent people also understand that, vested interests of big oil notwithstanding, there's gold in them thar hills - and green policies will leave us richer than ignoring the problem.
Dems support the war on conventional energy like oil and gas - see above.
Dems support societal changes that are unacceptable for most of the worlds population, like drag queens and men posing as women in sports events - f me gently with a chainsaw you have some offensive and prejudiced attitudes don't you?
Dems support uncontrolled immigration - no, and their immigration control policies were shot down by the Republicans so that Trump had a ticket to campaign on.
Dems support uncontrolled consumption of drugs in the USA - which explains perfectly why the addiction problem is dropping. AFAIK, only Cannabis is on the ticket for legalisation - but what's the alternative? Ever larger gaols?
Dems support the industrial military complex - words fail me. You have no evidence at all to support this claim, at least not to the extent that Democrats are any worse than Republicans
Putin officially made statements that he is supporting vice president Harris - yes, of course he makes such claims. He's stirring the pot and making claims that the terminally hard of thinking can pick up and use as talking points. Well done. You took the bait.
"Intelligent people know that the real art of the deal is for both parties to walk away from the negotiation feeling that they 'won' something"
This is vastly different to how the US works. The US does not care who gets crushed in the process of them winning. Just ask the CIA.
"green policies will leave us richer than ignoring the problem."
The reality being it is making China rich. In the US as in Europe the green push is pushing up energy costs and hurting the economy. The IRA was a classic DC pork bill designed to funnel money to big corps.
"no, and their immigration control policies were shot down by the Republicans"
The 'border bill' was nothing of the such. It was more money to Ukraine, more to Israel, allowing thousands of illegals into the US and maybe a little bit for added security. It was typical DC pork loaded with lots of goodies for the political donor class.
"This is vastly different to how the US works. The US does not care who gets crushed in the process of them winning. Just ask the CIA." - Sadly, I can't disagree with this statement. But that isn't how it should work if we want to advance as a society.
"The reality being it is making China rich. In the US as in Europe the green push is pushing up energy costs and hurting the economy." - Also, I can't disagree. However… If we do nothing then the damage to the ecosystem will be so catastrophic that it will cost trillions just to maintain the status quo, and that might not even be possible. Better, and cheaper, to repair the damage now (and also make some money from the repair work on the side!). Obviously, the oil companies will have to pivot or suffer - but that's a price worth paying for the sake of our children's futures.
"The 'border bill' was nothing of the such. It was more money to Ukraine, more to Israel, allowing thousands of illegals into the US and maybe a little bit for added security." - I think I read that there was a quid pro quo of money for Ukraine tacked on, but that seems like a worthwhile addition to take on an aggressor. Overall though, the border bill gave the GOP pretty much what it claimed it wanted.
But then the border would have ceased to be an issue.
And that didn't suit the FOCF's agenda at all.
BTW to help explain "The border issue" it might help to give an idea of timescales in different countries to consider a citizenship/asylum application.
France 6-8 weeks
England 12-18 months
US 5-8 years
IOW in France within 2 months you're either on your way to becoming a French national, or you're simply on your way. In the meantime those people have to be fed, watered and housed.
Is anyone else seeing a bit of a pattern here? 'Mo backlog, 'mo problems. IMHO it looks like an issue of not enough "processing capacity," which is a responsibility of a national government, provided it's not hamstrung by an opposition pursuing the BS culture war agenda of a bunch of SEL's.
1. Not all "Dems" -- across the wide swath of voters -- support all these talking points. I would also suspect that not all the "Dem" leaders agree 100% with the absolute extreme on every point. Painting with broad brushes is a poor argument.
2. If Putin officially supported Harris, how come that didn't make front-page headlines anywhere?
3. Look at my handle and think about where I used to work. The only "Dems" that support the military-industrial complex (gotta' use Ike's original phrasing) are those whose votes are at stake due to having defense presence in their constituency. I would know; most of my coworkers were/are 100% not "Dem", but they certainly are good people and technically competent. (And sometimes I agree with their politics, sometimes I don't, but we all get the job done.)
4. Don't call me a "Dem" either just because I like to break down arguments. I am staunchly independent and moderate. I do this to both sides, and I usually try to balance my ballot.
Have a thumbs up - if only for this line "Don't call me a "Dem" either just because I like to break down arguments. I am staunchly independent and moderate. I do this to both sides, and I usually try to balance my ballot."
Keep breaking it down! Keep being balanced!
1. Whether the agree of not they will tow the party line or find themselves unemployed. The Dems use draconian tactics to keep their people "in-line"!
2. He did, and it was in the News. But with all things that do not help the Marxist cause it was buried.
3. Not even close! As the saying goes, "it's all about the Benjamins! The Dems have the system of political graft down to a science and "war profits" are a very large part of it. Being a "democrat Congress(person)man is the fast track to wealth! Look how rich the "bartender" has become in just 2 terms in Congress.
4. Colour me skeptical!
Russian staste has NO values. They pedal 'traditional values' and have made their church a paid arm of the state, and at the same time they glorify Stalin and pour huge amount of money into 'pioneer'-style youth organisations. They promote the cultural war against the west, but quietly send their children to the most expensive Western schools. etc, etc. In short, they can do what they want, because they are not accountable, and the Russians have never been anything but abused by their masters, so they keep their heads down, as they always have.
re. Putin endorsing Harris, it was trolling, or at least reported as such, by official Russian media.
The rest of your text is simply a waste of time to comment.
We seem to have a smörgåsbord of idiots and nutters on the job here.
Twain is often, probably wrongly, credited with but would have certainly agreed with:
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
"Never argue with an idiot, onlookers won't be able to tell the difference."
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."
Shaw probably wrote from personal experience:
"Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
First, personally I hate both the candidates.
But, as everyone hates putin, (he knows this) so if he makes it known he likes someone, duh. and yes they getting caught (being sloppy) counts.
people don't rule the world, greed does.
I hope to see the nuke cloud, before the radiation gets me.
But, as everyone hates putin, (he knows this) so if he makes it known he likes someone, duh. and yes they getting caught (being sloppy) counts.
Like it or not, Russians love Putin and he's consistently got poll ratings that most Western 'leaders' would kill other people for. People in the West might hate Putin, but that's mostly because we've had a couple of decades of constant anti-Putin propaganda brainwashing people. So years ago, we were told by 'anonymous sources' that Putin was terminally ill, yet he's still alive and kicking. We were told that Navalny would defeat Russia and was the leading political opponent, despite few people inside Russia having heard of him. And him being a xenophobic racist.
But 'everyone' doesn't hate him. Putin hasn't been doing as many foreign visits lately, but when he does, he's gotten the red carpet treatment. Meanwhile, Olaf Scholz, leader of the EU's most powerful country visited Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan recently and was completely snubbed.
"Russians love Putin and he's consistently got poll ratings that most Western 'leaders' would kill other people for"
Putin routinely kills other people in order to maintain his "poll ratings". Hell, he even uses chemical warfare agents on foreign territory in order to "maintain his popularity".
Putin routinely kills other people in order to maintain his "poll ratings".
And err.. Who told you this? But for someone named logicgate.. Russia has a population of around 145m, Putin has an approval rating floating around 70-80%. How many dissidents would you have to kill to support the claim that 'most', ie >50% people hate Putin? Ignoring the accuracy of opinion polling and sample sizes.. That would be hard to hide. But then moments after Navalny's death, world 'leaders' declared his death a murder and of course blamed The Putin. No evidence, and a hasty burial that Yoland didn't even bother attending. Navalny's polling was <2% in Russia.
Hell, he even uses chemical warfare agents on foreign territory in order to "maintain his popularity".
Of course he does. The deadliest chemical warfare agent known to mankind and 'uniquely' Russian. No other nation could possibly have whipped some up and used it to frame Russia. Leonard Rink wasn't convicted of trying to flog Novichok to organised criminals, and Vladimir Khutsishvili didn't murder his former business partner using it. Russian (and Ukrainian) oligarch wars tend to get a tad brutal. But when in doubt, blame The Putin..
That is a fact, even though the mainstream media (and this writer) tries to deny it and say he was joking. Putin came back and insisted that he wasn't kidding. The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - 1984 George Orwell
Putin's goal with the West is (and always has been) to spread chaos
Telling some compliant mouthpiece he supports Harris is just dobbie s**t stirring by talking out of both sides of his mouth.
It's quite obvious that he'd prefer the FOCF back as he knows they will do (for whatever reason) exactly what he tells them to do.
Dobbie, Bibbi and the FOCF are in fact remarkably similar in how they play this game.
1)Keep your supporters angry 2)Tell them that only you can save them. 3)Divide and rule your opponents* by spreading as much chaos and confusion as possible by talking out of both sides of your mouth. Kind of like the abusive spouse that angry and hurtful then alternates it with affection and kindness, leaving their victim confused, when they should be recognising they are just dealing with a nasty PoS and walk out the door.
*or in Dobbies case just have them murdered. BTW Hamas and Hezbollah are not Bibi's opponents. They can't replace his Govt and start a criminal trial that would have his arse thrown in jail.
He can kill them with impunity, so far at a ratio of 30:1 for every victim of 7/10/23, a direct results of his hatred of the 2 state solution and playing divide-and-rule games with the Palestinians.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
